



Book 



f 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2010 with funding from 
The Library of Congress 



http://www.archive.org/details/costaricapanamaaOOmata 



Costa Rica-Panama Arbitration 



REPORT 



SUBMITTED TO 



THE REPRESENTATIVE OF COSTA RICA 



BY 



LUIS MATAMOROS 
CONSULTING ENGINEER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF COSTA RICA 



WASHINGTON, D. C. 

PRESS OF GIBSON BROTHERS, INC. 

1913- 






MAR 10 1915 



^ 



;r^. 



^p. 



^ 



INDEX 

OP THE 

CHAPTERS. 



I. THE REPORT OF THE GEOLOGIST 5 

H. THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION 13 

(i) The Lower Sixaola. 

(2) The Lower Sixaola (continuation). 

(3) Tracing of the eine that ceoses the 

Valeey of the Sixaoea upon the north. 

(4) The Upper Teeiri. 

III. SOME EXPLANATIONS AS TO THE TRACING 

OF THE LINE THAT CLOSES THE VALLEY 
OF THE SIXAOLA UPON THE NORTH 57 

IV. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS PROPOSED BY 

COSTA RICA AND PANAMA TO THE COM= 
MISSION OF ENCifNE^RS IN THE ORDER 
IN WHICH THE COMMISSION SUBMITTED 
THEM FOR THE EXAMINATION OF THE 
ASSISTANT=ENGINEERS IN THE FIELD 64 

V. THE STARTING POINT, UPON THE MAPS 
OF THE COMMISSION, OF THE SUPPOSED 
DIVIDE, MARKED WITH TWO BLACK, 
CONTINUOUS AND PARALLEL LINES 84 

VI. THE BASES OF SOME POINTS DISCUSSED 

IN THE PRECEDING CHAPTER 99 

VII. THE LONGITUDINAL PROFILE SUBMITTED 

BY THE COMMISSION 120 

VIII. NEW PROOFS 123 

IX. THE DIVIDE BETWEEN THE WATER= 

SHEDS OF THE TWO OCEANS 134 

3 



CHAPTER I. 



THE REPORT OF THE GEOLOGIST. 

1. If the Report of the Commission of Engineers be 
examined with some care, especially in its declarative 
portion, it will be observed that it is based upon the 
opinions of the Geologist.^ 

2. Before analyzing this document it is indispensable 
to determine precisely the limits of the territory personally 
explored and traversed by the Geologist, for the purpose 
of ascertaining what facts must be admitted as authentic, 
as being data gathered upon the ground, and at the same 
time excluding every item of information or fact in that 
report lying outside the boundaries of his personal inspec- 
tion, for the reason that it was not obtained directly upon 
the ground but by reports, comparisons and unverified 
hypotheses. 

3. The Geologist has exactly fixed those boundaries 
which we are now about to consider. 

On page 8 he says : "The territory personally examined 
geologically * * * is contained between north lati- 
tude 9° 35' and 9° 38' and west longitude 82° 38' and 
82° 60'." 

As we shall see further on (Chap. IV; O. XIV, a), these 
boundaries exclude at once the territory from the mouth 
of the Sixaola, 82° 34' 50" west of Greenwich to a half- 
mile to the west of Punta Mona, meridian 82° 38' west, or 
a distance of 5,852 meters. 

^Report of Commission, p. 43. 



6 

On the other hand, he says: " Unfortunately the writer 
did not have time to thoroughly examine this upper valley 
except to make a hasty visit to the lower end of it."^ 

This statement confines his personal inspection strictly 
to a hasty visit to the extreme lower end of the upper valley 
of the Sixaola ; and on page 45 he indicates the separation 
of the two valleys into an upper part and a lower part and 
places the boundary between them at Piedra Grande, by 
saying "* * * that the division between these two 
parts is in the vicinity of Piedra Grande."" If the map 
presented by him is consulted it will be found that Piedra 
Grande is situated at 82° 52' 30" west of Greenwich and 
9° 36' north latitude; from which it may be inferred 
that his personal inspection did not reach finally to the 
meridian of 82° 60' as it is literally stated, but only as far 
as 82° 52' 30" west of Greenwich, or, that is to say, over a 
territory embraced between 82° 38' and 82° 52' 30". 

4. The Geologist excludes as a matter of fact all personal 
investigation in the region of Punta Mona, and within the 
whole of the territory which extends from Piedra Grande 
to the meridian of 83° 30'; that is to say, that his recon- 
naissance, which should have included the territory be- 
tween the meridians of 82° 34' 50" and 83° 30', or a dis- 
tance of fifty-five geographical miles, covered only the 
territory between the meridians of 82° 38' and 82° 52' 30", 
or fourteen and a half miles, and hardly three miles in 
latitude. 

5. The accompanying map, Plate No. I, shows the ter- 
ritory explored by the Geologist between the boundaries 
that he himself fixed. 

^ Report of the Geologist, top of p. 46. 
-Report of the Geologist, sec. 4, p. 45. 



6. It was important that this matter be settled at the 
outset in order to find an explanation for the various 
anomalies observable in the report. 

7. For the purposes of its consideration it will be con- 
venient to divide that paper into three parts: 

The first is occupied mainly with historical generalities 
of geology. 

The second is devoted to the theory which has recently 
been prevalent as to the prehistoric formation of such 
ground. 

The third is the practical portion, applied to the descrip- 
tion of the territory. 

8. The first two parts do not affect the question. It 
may even be conceded that the hypothetical submergence 
at some prehistoric date may have really taken place, but 
that does not prevent the present situation from being a 
different one. 

9. For that reason everything that relates to the first 
two parts is excluded from the discussion in this paper in 
order to take up the third, or the conclusions and 
facts stated by the Geologist, but always within the boun- 
daries he himself fixed as coming under his personal obser- 
vation. 

10. A simple inspection of the small area explored by the 
Geologist, marked byarectangle in the accompanying map, 
Plate No. I, will be sufficient to show that it is not possible 
nor logical to accept any of the general principles that he 
lays down for the whole of the vast region that is to be 
considered. Geology is a science based upon observation 
and not upon deduction, and it is impossible to lay down 
rules covering a given region when only a small portion 
of it has been studied. 



8 

11. Hence it comes that the opinions of the Geologist 
in respect to the valleys of the tributaries of the Sixaola, 
or as to any other point outside of the limits fixed, cannot 
be taken into consideration. 

12. In this same lower part of the Sixaola, the Geologist, 
doubtless without looking at the maps, either those pre- 
pared by the Commission or the one submitted by himself 
and, furthermore, without having been there, emphatically 
states : ^ 

"* * * the upbuilding of these natural levees, 
coupled with the 2.3 meters rise of the land, both 
brought about in late Pleistocene time, certainly some 
hundreds and possibly some thousands of years ago, 
have caused some of the former branches of the 
Sixaola River, such as Gadokan Creek, to approxi- 
mately parallel the main stream and flow out into the 
ocean instead of into the Sixaola where it certainly 
formerly emptied * * *." 

and on the same page, 24, farther down he says: 

"In prehistoric times, then, practically all of the 
creeks, including Gadokan and those northeast of it 
which now flow into the ocean, were tributaries of the 
Sixaola." 

13. On the contrary, the maps and reports declare that 
the sources of the Gadokan lie very far to the westward 
of the Sixaola; the Chief Engineer of Party A, Mr. Weak- 
land, says (I^a Palma, May 19, 1912): 

"We have established the fact that Gadokan Creek 
has no connection with the Sixaola and that it heads 
more to the west than shown on any map we have."^ 

^Appendix No. 2, p. 24. 
^Appendix No. 3, p. 2. 



9 

14- The Commission, then, at the same time accepted 
the parallehsm of the Gadokan and the Sixaola, as laid 
down by the Geologist, and the net divergence of the same, 
estabhshed by the Engineer of Party A, who visited per- 
sonally and drew the course of the Gadokan. 

The conclusions of the Commission reveal the fact that 
it was influenced by the opinion of the Geologist, who had 
not been upon the ground, and disregarded that of its own 
Engineer at the head of Party A. 

15. The citation of these contradictions might be con- 
tinued at great length, but a few of the more important 
will be sufficient. 

On page 15, section D, the Geologist says: 

"The percentage of run-off during the wet season is 
very large, because the rain falls much more rapidly 
than it can be absorbed by the ground, hence must 
run off." 

And ten pages further on (p. 25) he says: 

"Many of the swamp areas are passable in the dry 
season, which may have one to three meters of water 
over them after heavy rains." 

16. The Geologist neglected to consider the evapora- 
tion, which is very great in that region, by reason of the 
high temperature that he himself noted there, ^ but as he 
also makes the assertion (p. 14) that the maximum rainfall 
in one year (1910) hardly reached 149 inches, or say 3.75 
meters, we would have to suppose that the run-off, perco- 
lation, etc., be considered as null, together with a dam three 

1 Report of the Geologist, pp. 12 and 13. 



10 

meters high, keeping the waters permanently at that 
height. But it should also be noted that the 149 inches 
mentioned was the amount of rainfall for the entire 
year and not merely one heavy rain, as the Geologist 
intimates. 

17. Summarizing the Report of the Geologist, it should 
be said that notwithstanding the anomalies thus far 
pointed out, he did state various actual and authentic 
facts in regard to that region. It is true that if he did 
state these facts, he did it with a view of applying his 
theories and hypotheses to them for the purpose of im- 
peaching or denying their effect, and it has been necessary 
to divest them of the appearance they had, for recognition. 

18. A few instances, among others that could be selected 
are as follows : 

First. The Geologist lays it down, for example, that 
Punta Mona is found to be isolated from the rest of the 
main land by vSwamp A lying between, but as he applies 
the theory of ''low saddles," the result is that it is joined 
to the mainland. 

Second. He says that Gadokan and other small streams 
discharge their waters directly into the ocean, but he 
subjects them to the submergence hypothesis and makes 
them in fact tributaries of the vSixaola. 

Third. He alleges that the rocks of the Caribbean 
Coast are formed by coral growths, but insists upon 
reiterating the theory of a submergence, converting Punta 
Mona, which lies upon the Caribbean shores, into a 
homogeneous and integral part of the Main Cordillera, etc 



11 

19- If each of the above declarations is divested of 
the hypothesis by which it is impeached, then each one 
of them stands out as true and authentic by itself ; thus : 

1. It is a fact that Punta Mona is separated from the 
mainland by Swamp A. 

2. It is a fact that Gadokan, Middle Creek, Punta 
Mona Creek, Manzanillo Creek, Taiodi, Codes and other 
small streams do discharge their waters directly into the 
ocean and take their rise upon a basin that is distinct 
from that of the Sixaola. 

3. It is a fact that the rocks forming Punta Mona are 
those usual upon the Caribbean Coast (the Antillita of 
Gabb), coral, and sedimentary formations that have no 
relation to the basic or crystalline rocks of the Main 
Cordillera. 

20. In the course of this paper each one of the points 
of the Report of the Geologist that ought to be dis- 
cussed will be examined. But, as will be seen at the 
proper place, the meteorological data submitted by the 
Geologist, from observations continued over a period of 
six years, were not used by him nor by the Commission 
for the purpose of seeing whether his assertions were or 
were not well founded. If such data had been considered, 
the hypotheses of the Commission would have in great 
part broken down, giving way to the real facts, proved 
by these very data. 

21. The sole purpose of the examination that is now 
taken up, is to bring out the truth, using solely and 
exclusively the data and facts furnished by the reports 
under discussion. 

22. It would have been possible to have had recourse 
besides to other sources and to other means in order to 



12 

establish the truth, but it was not necessary, and circum- 
stances demanded a strict restriction to the data men- 
tioned as being all that now may be considered to have a 
full legal status. 

23. Thus stated, the foregoing chapter is the preamble 
to the examination that follows. 



CHAPTER 11. 



THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. 

(i) The Lower Sixaola. 

1. This document contains 65 pages, of which 35 are 
devoted to administrative matters of the Commission and 
the remainder contain a description of the investigations 
made. The maps submitted are more expHcit than the 
descriptions, but taking the maps and the report together 
the subject is so presented that by reference thereto it 
is very easy to answer the questions asked by the two 
contracting countries. 

2. The matters included by the Commission in the 
appendices to the General Report, being the special 
reports of the heads of the technical sections in the locali- 
ties examined, and which it embodied and embraced by 
its signature, are in the highest degree instructive, since 
the facts observed personally and individually are thus 
established and cannot be controverted. 

3. It does not seem as if the Commission gave to these 
reports the importance which they really have, inasmuch as 
the conclusions reached by it are not based upon them. It 
is observed that in some cases the Commission, in com- 
municating them, suppressed some phrases or ideas, but 
fortunately there exist and are to be found in the com- 
municated documents, texts of the greatest value for 
clearing up and solving the problems submitted, the 
sole object of the work of the Commission. 

4. The detailed statement of verified facts, made by 
the chief of Party A, in charge of the surveys and topog- 
raphy of the region embraced between Guabito and 

13 



14 



Manzanillo, which appears in Appendix No. 3, is especially- 
important in this matter; in the first place, because the 
Commission embodied and transmitted it; and second, 
because they are facts observed and deduced by the 
writer in situ, and communicated by him to the Com- 
mission, not as the final result of his work in that region, 
not as a conclusion, but as evident and actually observed 
facts, discussed and verified while engaged in the course 
of his investigations and not conceived upon the termina- 
tion thereof. 

5. The Commission while sitting, not in its headquarters 
at Sanchez, nor at Punta Mona, nor even at San Jose, 
where it had its central office, but at Evanston, ana 
doubtless when it had finished in the latter place the 
drawing of the maps, located thereon a line that it felt 
authorized to call: "lyine of a hypothetical divide arbi- 
trarily drawn." That line does not exist. 

6. According to the regulations for its internal opera- 
tion, prepared by the Commission and approved at its 
Session, No. 17, of January 19, 1912,^ the various chiefs 
of parties were required to draw out in the form and 
manner provided all the field notes taken during the 
previous three days in the course of their surveys.^ That 
provision, as may be seen by the special reports of the 
four different chiefs of parties, was always complied with 
by them, and, referring to only one instance, among the 
many that could be cited, it appears that the chief of 
Party A reported^ that he had personally verified the 
fact that no connection whatever existed between the 



'Appendix No. i, p. 102. 

-Rule 18 of General Instructions: Appendix No. i, p. no. 

^Appendix No. 3 to the General Report. 



15 

course of Gadokan Creek, throughout its entire length, 
and that of the River Sixaola. 

7. It Hkewise appears that this same section chief 
arrived some days later at Punta Mona, but there is 
nothing to be found in his report showing that he met 
with any connection between that point and the interior 
of the region. If he had found any he would have reported 
it, as he did in the case of the low ridge of Gadokan, 
between this creek and the river; but on the contrary 
what he did report was, as shown by the maps and docu- 
ments, marshy and low-lying lands, and the great swamp 
between Middle Creek and Manzanillo which extends 
over the whole south of Punta Mona. 

8. This is the reason why it is mentioned here that it 
was at Evanston, and not at the places on the ground 
where the work was done, that the line traced was called 
the "Line of a hypothetical divide arbitrarily drawn." 

9. The very name given to it by the Commission 
definitely excludes it from all argument, and if it were 
not that its creation might be detrimental to the interests 
of Costa Rica, the designation thus applied to it would 
be enough to cause it to be disregarded. We feel, there- 
fore, compelled to discuss the basis of this line assumed 
by the Commission, which was also the supposed frontier 
that the French Arbitrator conceived. 

10. In calling it "arbitrary," and "hypothetical," the 
Commission confirmed the fact that it was their imaginary 
creation, just as the spur that started out from Punta 
Mona was also an arbitrary and hypothetical creation. 

1 1 . If the supposition advanced in the French Arbitral 
Award in this respect had never existed, there would have 
been no room for the present discussions, and that arbi- 
trary line would never have been imagined, at least in 



16 

the place where it is now located. Such a supposition 
may to a certain extent have been justified in the mind 
of the President of France when he drew up the Award 
of 1900, on account of the little or almost entire lack of 
knowledge then had of that littoral, but now, after the 
careful investigation and maps prepared by the Com- 
mission appointed by the Honorable Arbitrator and the 
contending countries, there is no ground for such a sup- 
position, it not being, as the Commission asserts, "hypo- 
thetical" or "arbitrary," but simply replacing the line that 
the President of France thought existed. As to this, the 
General Report, the maps and the details submitted by 
the Commission, could not be more eloquent or decisive, 
for they clearly and definitively show that the line supposed 
by the Arbitral Award to exist was a "hypothetical and 
arbitrary line." 

12. The best explanation regarding this and covering 
this point was furnished by the commissioner Mr. Hodgdon, 
in his special report, where he speaks of establishing the 
fact that the little streams of Gadokan, Middle Creek, 
Manzanillo and others, discharge their waters "directly 
into the Ocean," and without any connection with the 
Sixaola or with its valley.' 

Having set forth this preamble, let the facts now be 
examined. 

13. Plan No. 2, Sheet No. 2: "A map of the eastern 
portion of the region covered by surveys in 191 2," upon 
a scale of 1:10,000, definitely marks a line separating 
throughout its entire extension the basins of the vSixaola 
and of the Gadokan. This line begins upon the map 
exactly on the meridian of 82° 40' and at 9° 35' 20" north 
latitude, and it ends upon the Atlantic Coast to the west 



'vSupplemental Report of Mr. Hodgdon, p. 5. 



17 

of the outlet of the vSixaola at 82° 34' 39" west of 
Greenwich, and 9° 35' north latitude. This line, from its 
starting point upon this map, follows a ridge, the contours 
of which indicate an elevation of about fifty meters, to 
the parallel of 9° 34', at longitude 82° 39' 20" west; where 
no contours nor details of elevation appear upon the 
plan, but the course of the Gadokan is indicated and 
the ridge continues until it terminates at the coast. 

14. Sheet No. i of the same map shows the continua- 
tion of the ridge indicated upon Sheet No. 2, and upon 
the same scale 1:10,000, from a point designated 82° 40' 
west, and 9° 35' 20" north latitude, in a northerly course 
and almost upon the meridian 82° 40' west to the parallel 
9° 35' 25" north, where the ridge takes a direction toward 
the northwest. Upon this course the ridge runs until 
it reaches the parallel of 9° 36', at a point the longitude 
of which is 82° 40' 45" west, and the elevation of which 
is marked upon the map at a height of 100 meters. From 
this point the direction of the ridge continues to the 
northwest at elevations between 50 and 100 meters; 
but another divide also appears starting out from that 
same point, taking a course nearly north, over hilltops, 
the elevation of which is not greater than 50 meters, and 
with depressions as low as about 10 meters above sea 
level, as may be seen by referring to the point where 
this new divide crosses the intersection of longitude 
82° 49' 39" west, with the parallel of 9° 36' 30" north 
latitude,^ and which is distant one kilometer from the 

^The writer of this report takes this method in all cases to 
indicate the point to which allusion is made and thus avoids 
making any sign, mark or annotation that might in any way 
disfigure the original map of the Commission, which is thus left 
intact. 

IS59— 2 



18 

starting point taken. From this depression the line 
rises again to the extremity of the ridge, the next level 
curve being 150 meters, and it reaches a height of 193 
meters at Station A-1239. This culminating point is 
only distant 830 meters from another situated to the 
northwest, the elevation of which is 169 meters, marked 
upon the map as Station A-1261, and distant from the 
coast, in a straight line toward the sea in a northerly 
direction, only 1,760 meters; but this point upon the 
coast, as may be seen by a' reference to the map, lies 
6,000 meters to the west from Punta Mona; that is to 
say, still further west than Manzanillo. 

15. This other divide which we left at Station A-1239, 
and which began at the point before cited, 82° 40' 45" 
and 9° 36' north latitude, is indicated upon the maps by 
a double continuous black line, and the Commission 
designate it: "Divide which is the north limit of the area 
which drains into the Atlantic further south than Punta 
Mona," in order to expressly and deliberately distinguish 
it from the divide that is marked by a single continuous 
black line, and which is entitled: "Divide which is the 
north limit of the drainage area of the Sixaola River;" 
and to differentiate it yet more clearly and precisely 
from the divide marked with a double line of black dashes, 
and which is called: "Line of a hypothetical divide arbi- 
trarily drawn across Swamp A." 

16. This other divide, we repeat, instead of continuing 
in the direction which has been described and which to 
a certain degree seems the most logical, inasmuch as 
it runs along higher elevations, and is consequently better 
visible and more certain, to the point already mentioned 
at the height of 169 meters, at Station A-1261, which 
is distant from the coast only 1,760 meters, although 



19 

the Commission has indicated it as a "divide" differing 
from the one that bounds upon the north the Valley of 
the Sixaola, is continued by the Commission, not forward 
but rather backward and carrying it to the east, some 
distance still further to the south, until it reaches, after 
running a distance of 2,500 meters, a point yet lower than 
the one just indicated (169 meters), since it only has a 
height of 90 meters and is situated at 82° 39' west longi- 
tude and 9° 36' 4.0" north latitude, or more exactly at 
82° 38' 57" west longitude and 9° 36' 43" north latitude, 
whilst the point A-1261 at the height of 169 meters, 
distant from A- 1239 only 830 meters, is situated at 
82° 40' 34" west longitude and 9° 37' 26" north latitude. 

17. From the point having an elevation of 90 meters, 
the line descends, running toward the north, to the parallel 
of 9° 37', at longitude 82° 38' 54" west, where it is on the 
edge of the marsh ; thence in a northeast direction it trav- 
erses the entire marsh to the parallel of 9° 38' at longitude 
82° 38' 06", where a little hill rises that ends in Punta 
Mona, and there also the divide that is being traced 
terminates. 

18. The separation of this divide, which, according to 
the maps, is hypothetical and arbitrary, not only across 
Swamp A, but also after it leaves vStation A- 1239, is very 
logical, and the comparison that is made between the 
hypothetical tracing marked upon the maps and the 
more accurate one shown by these very same maps, along 
greater elevations and nearer to the coast, was simply 
with the purpose of confirming the appellation given to 
that divide, as a "hypothetical and arbitrary line." 

19. So that, among all the numerous facts and data 
furnished by the report of the Commission of Engineers in 



20 

justification of the rights claimed by Costa Rica, there is 
none better, clearer or more convincing than the one shown 
by the maps at the precise point being analysed in this 
report. 

20. In fact, plan No. 2, sheet No. 2, ends toward the 
north at the point we have noted as the "divide," at the 
intersection of 82° 40' west longitude and 9° 35' 20" north 
latitude. From this point onward map No. 2, sheet No. i, 
shows the continuation of said actual divide from the basin 
of the vSixaola upon the north. This divide runs thence 
upon the same meridian of 82° 40' to the parallel of 9° 35' 
25", where the divide bends toward the northwest and on 
this course is found the point at the intersection of 82^^ 
40' 46" and 9° 36', where the other divide starts that 
is distinguished by the Commission as the ridge that 
bounds upon the north the drainage area that is "further 
south than Punta Mona," and which, as has been seen, 
is hypothetical and arbitrary. The result is, therefore, 
that looking at the maps, there are to be seen at the same 
time and to a certain extent parallel, two divides; the first 
one close to the bed of the Sixaola, being the real and actual 
one that limits the basin of this river upon the north; 
whilst the second one, beginning at the point mentioned, 
proceeds by a very long and winding course, hypothetical 
and arbitrary, toward Punta Mona. That is to say, there 
are two divides of the Sixaola Valley upon the north, on the 
same side of that stream ; one of them cutting the meridian 
of 82° 40' at the parallel of 9° 35' 24", and the other cutting 
the same meridian of 82° 40' at the parallel of 9° 37' 04'', 
the distance between them being 3,000 meters. 

21. This undeniable fact, unanimously stated and sub- 
scribed to by the entire Commission of Engineers, brings 
into clearer relief than others that might be cited the fact 



21 

that, even supposing and conceding that the hypothetical 
divide of the Commission did exist, there exists at the 
same time another real divide, which, closer to the course 
of the Sixaola, closes the basin of this river before the 
former one ; but this real divide does not enjoy the privilege 
of terminating at nor does it run to Punta Mona, for it 
ends just to the west of the outlet of the Sixaola into the 
♦ocean. 

22. The Commissioner, Mr. Hodgdon, in his supple- 
mental report, had the honor of corroborating this funda- 
mental fact, while establishing those that were derived 
therefrom; that is, that various creeks, including the 
Gadokan and others farther to the west of Manzanillo, 
empty their waters directly into the ocean, without any 
connection with the Sixaola^ 

23. The fact could not be otherwise, for it is shown by 
the documents presented by the Commission, the report 
or reports of the Engineer of Section A, that he personally 
examined this portion of the territory, and he says, among 
other things:"^ "We have established the fact that the 
Gadokan Creek has no connection with the Sixaola and 
that it heads more to the west than shown on any map 
we have;" and he reiterates it when he says:'* "I walked 
over the ground between the Creek Gadokan and the 
Sixaola and satisfied myself that there is no connection 
between them." 

24. Evidence of all these statements will be found 
recorded upon the maps, where the divide shown by a 
continuous line is extended until it ends at the coast to 
the west of the mouth of the Sixaola. 

^Report of Mr. Hodgdon, p. 5. 
-Appendix No. 3, p. 2. 
^Appendix No. 3, p. 3. 



22 

25- There exists another divide, also, equal to the 
foregoing, between Gadokan and Middle Creek, which 
the maps do not indicate, but which is known to all those 
who travel on foot or upon horseback between Punta 
Mona and Guabito. 

26. Based upon new mathematical data furnished by 
the investigations of the Commission, other conclusions 
may be deduced no less important. One is that the 
delta of the Sixaola, which up to the present time has 
been understood to extend to near the mouth of Gadokan 
Creek, is confined to its own actual mouth and very close 
to which the divide, indicated upon the maps by a broken 
line, terminates. 

27. There is no doubt that these points, inasmuch as 
they are easily accessible, were recognized at the outset 
of the work of the Commission, and if it were not that it 
is presumed the Commission prudently thought it well 
to gather the fullest data possible in order to facilitate 
the solution of the problem it might be alleged that the 
Commission had exceeded the powers committed to it 
by the Honorable Chief Justice, the Arbitrator in this 
litigation, who, in accordance with the Treaty, limited 
the investigations of the Commission to the "line that 
closes on the north the Valley of the Sixaola," and not 
the basin of the Sixaola. 

28. The Commission, having recognized the fact settled 
by Mr. Hodgdon\ that the little streams which run^ 
from the Gadokan, inclusive, toward the west, are inde- 
pendent of the Sixaola and discharge their waters directly 
into the ocean, should have refrained from taking the whole 
of that region into consideration, and if deemed to have 

^Report, p. 5. 



23 

a place on the maps, the region should have been included 
therein merely by way of illustration and nothing more. 

29. Still, upon the maps, and in the descriptions more 
especially, a tendency may be noted to assimilate the 
basin upon which Punta Mona is found, a watershed 
that drains directly into the ocean, to the basin of the 
Sixaola. To arrive at this the maps say: "Divide which 
is the north limit of the drainage area of the Sixaola 
River when that river and Gadokan Creek are at low 
stages, but which may be submerged in portions and 
hence is not a divide when either the Sixaola River 
or Gadokan Creek is at a high stage and their waters 
mingle." 

30. Before going thoroughly into this classification sui 
generis, let us state parenthetically in the fewest possible 
words two ideas, which are essentially identical and yet 
are interpreted by the Commission in a diametrically 
opposite sense. 

31. The Commission, relying upon the opinion of the 
Geologist, accepted the conclusion that the hypothetical 
divide that appears upon the maps, proceeding across 
vSwamp A, toward Punta Mona, ought to he considered, 
although a great part of it is constantly submerged below 
the level of the waters of the swamp. The strongest 
reason adduced was that in some prehistoric period that 
territory was buried at a depth of 120 meters,^ and, con- 
sequently, not Punta Mona alone, but also the islet lying 
in front of it, formed the termination of a high and visible 
divide; and the Commission, contradicting the very lan- 
guage of the reports made by its Engineer of Party A, 
showing that no connection exists between the Gadokan 
and the Sixaola, says that the divide between these two 
water-courses must not he considered, when both streams 



^Report of the Geologist p. 21. 



24 

flood the land near their discharge outlets ; that is to say, 
a divide must not be considered when it is submerged, 
although not constantly, like the above, but by the simple 
rising of the waters. 

32. So that what must be accepted as an accomplished 
fact, because it was so in some prehistoric epoch, must 
not be accepted as an accomplished fact, because it is so 
during the present epoch. 

33. The two facts are identical and yet the conclusions 
put forth by the Commission are diametrically opposed : 
in the first case it accepts, and in the second case, pre- 
cisely the same, it denies. Going to the bottom of the 
matter and stating it succinctly : in one case a fact is sup- 
ported that is injurious to Costa Rica, and in the other 
and like case it is rejected when it favors Costa Rica. 

34. This disposes of the parenthetical matter and, re- 
turning again to the question, it is very noticeable that 
there is, both upon the maps and in the descriptions, a 
tendency to assimilate what we know under the name of 
' ' Manzanillo Basin ' ' with the ' ' Sixaola Basin. ' ' The argu- 
ment adduced for this is condensed by the Commissioner, 
Mr. Hodgdon, in his supplementary report, by saying that 
the Gadokan, Middle Creek and all the other little streams 
that discharge during flood periods into the ocean, ought 
to be considered as tributaries of the Sixaola, because by 
the rains the course of the Sixaola and the courses of those 
creeks become mingled. 

35. The argument is not a consistent one and it is one 
that could be used to assert that the Mississippi is a tribu- 
tary of the Rio Grande del Norte, because both empty 
into the Gulf of Mexico. And the most remarkable thing 
is that if we were very careful as to the significance of the 
word "tributary" it would be found that in the case before 



25 

us, the flow of the Gadokan being extremely small in 
comparison to that of the Sixaola, in cases of floods it 
would not be the Gadokan that would pour into the 
Sixaola, but a part of the waters from the Sixaola would 
be found to go to swell those of the Gadokan, so that the 
former would then be a tributary of the latter, and not 
the latter a tributary of the former. 

36. So, while the Commission as a body, termed simply 
"low saddles" the submerged part that it supposed ran 
and terminated at Punta Mona, in accord with the 
Geologist who asserted that "In geological studies it 
is a very common thing to find low saddles in divides,"^ 
why was not this same dictum applied to the divide that 
exists between Gadokan and the Sixaola? And let it be 
especially noted that this "low saddle " is always submerged, 
while that between the Gadokan and the Sixaola is visible 
throughout the dry season and is only submerged during 
high floods in the rivers, as the Commission asserts in its 
hypothesis. 

37. But the very climax of this whole matter is that the 
divide which is sought to be imposed, to end at Punta Mona, 
and which is supported and maintained by the very same 
arguments by which the other divide is rejected, is not the 
divide that closes upon the north the valley of the Sixaola. 

38. If, as this Commission declares, the divide that runs 
hypothetically toward Punta Mona is simply the line that 
limits the drainage area toward the Atlantic,^ farther 
south than Punta Mona, what is to be done with 
this divide thus categorically defined, existent or not, 
which not corresponding, either with the description or 
the explicit conditions set forth by the French Award, 

^Report of the Geologist, p. 19. 
^See the legend upon the. maps. 



26 

ought not to be given any consideration whatever ? There 
is no object in further discussion or denial of that point 
after the Commission has officially declared that this is 
not the divide that separates upon the north the valley of 
the vSixaola. 

39. If it exists, it is not the one meant by the French 
Award, and if its existence is merely hypothetical and 
arbitrary, worse yet. That it was delineated finally in a 
hypothetical form, that such hypothesis came to have 
some semblance of reality, even so, the result is, as defined 
by the Commission : a new divide which limits solely and 
only the drainage area toward the Atlantic jurther south than 
Punta Mona, and which starts and separates itself from the 
crest that forms the divide of the Sixaola upon the north. 

It is not possible to controvert these fundamental facts 
that are laid down by the Commission. 

40. The appended map, Plate No. II, will show at a glance 
all the details that have been discussed. In this the posi- 
tions of the important points that relate thereto have been 
preserved as they were laid down upon the maps of the 
Commission, and the same conventional signs were adopted 
as used by it to indicate the divide of the Sixaola, the 
divide of the area to the south of Punta Mona, etc., while 
making use of a new conventional sign to express some- 
thing not already defined upon the maps. 

(2) The Lower vSixaola (continuation). 

41. Up to this point the examination of the Commis- 
sion's Report, has dealt with certain strange and inexplic- 
able items proposed by it. 

42. They are inexplicable, because the Honorable 
Chief Justice, with great foresight, at an opportune 
moment, brought to the knowledge of the Commission the 



27 

original text of the French Award of September ii, 1900, 
and it appears that the Commission took full notice of it at 
its eighth session, held in Washington, D. C, on November 
23, 1911.^ 

43. The perusal of that document reveals the fact that 
it does not refer to "a line that closes on the North the 
basin of the Sixaola' ' but to "a line that closes on the North 
the valley of the River Tarire or Sixaola." Here are two 
different and quite distinct ideas, particularly when ex- 
pressed in technical language. 

44. It is well to ask here, before going into the matter, 
whether the four notable engineers who made up the 
Commission confused the meaning of ''valley'' and 
''basin'' and whether these two terms were by them 
considered synonymous. 

45. Such a thing cannot be presumed. Synonyms have 
their limits and those engineers knew how to distinguish 
perfectly between what was a valley and what was a basin; 
and the maps they presented are a proof of this fact. It is 
true that Colombia formerly, and afterwards Panama, 
sought to make these two terms synonymous, when this 
question was discussed subsequent to the delivery of the 
French Award, which was confined to "* * * the 
line that closes the valley * * *" and not the one 
closing the basin (in French vallee, not bassin) . 

46. Happily, the maps furnished by the Commission 
are delineated in such a way that by a simple glance any 
one can separate the "valley" of the vSixaola from the 
"basin" of the Sixaola. 

47. In separate documents, the Professor of Geology 
from Lehigh University, Pennsylvania, and the author of 



^Report, Vol. II; Appendix No. i. Minutes, p. 31. 



28 

this report, have fully discussed the difference existing 
between "valley" and "basin," to which attention is 
called, showing that everybody understands that the 
"basin" is the whole of the watershed belonging to a river, 
to a lake or a sea, while the "valley" is limited to the 
lower portion of the basin, so to speak — the bottom of it. 

48. Among the most notable naturalists, Figuier and 
Penck are in full accordance with the principle set forth, 
that the valley is constituted by the bottom of the depres- 
sions of hills and mountains. 

49. The total depression between hills or mountains, 
that encloses or constitutes the valley or valleys and 
extends further on to embrace all the regions that dis- 
charge their waters into a given stream, is the basin or 
catchment-area of that stream. 

50. The difference is so patent between the two ideas, 
"valley" and "basin," that the very first paragraph of the 
Loubet Award states them both, using different words. 
In the first case the frontier closes on the north the valley 
of the Sixaola ; and in the second it is the line that divides 
the watersheds of the two oceans. Greater clearness in 
two distinct ideas cannot be imagined. 

51. Fortunately, as already indicated, the maps are so 
explicit that it is easy to trace upon them the line that 
closes upon the north the valley of the Sixaola. 

(3) Tracing of the line that ceoses upon the north 
the vaeeey of the sixaola. 

52. It is very certain that, notwithstanding all the 
theories that have been suggested in respect to the forma- 
tion of valleys, no one has clearly defined where the valley 
ends and where the slope begins of the height that, taken 
together with the valley, constitutes the basin, since that 



29 

is a particular physical fact to be determined in each 
case and place; but such a line does exist in all valleys 
and may be definitely determined. All that is needed is 
to establish the transverse or cross-sections of the basin 
in question, perpendicular to the hydraulic axis of the 
current of the river. These cross-sections will furnish 
the different points of the line that is to be traced, and 
once located they may be transferred to the maps. 
These points, when joined, will form the line that closes 
the valley. 

53. On the south side and the right bank of the Sixaola 
the cross-sections were not carried out, for it was on that 
side the Sixaola Valley stretched out and the limit there 
was not a subject of discussion, whilst upon the left bank 
the valley hardly amounts to anything, as may be seen 
by a reference to the maps and the line limiting that valley. 

54. As will be observed further on, in discussing the 
Upper Teliri, the line that closes upon the north the 
valley of the Telire, ends at a point of which the co-ordi- 
nates are: 83° 03' 20" west longitude and 9° 35' 45" 
north latitude, where the Telire Valley terminates, and 
where the bed of the river becomes walled in between 
high mountains already forming a canon. 

55. Up to this point, also, the tracing of that line extends 
in the auxilliary map that is submitted. 

CONCLUSION. 

56. Considering all the data furnished by the Com- 
mission of Engineers, and in conformity with the language 
of the text of the French Award, the line that closes upon 
the north the valley of the Sixaola, being already indicated 
upon the map, the result is: 

I. That such line does not start out from Punta Mona; 



30 

2. That such Hne does not follow any divide; and 

3. That such line does not connect with a point or 
points of the Main Cordillera. 



TRANSVERSE SECTIONS AT POINTS UPON THE SIXAOI.A 
AND TELIRI RIVERS. 

The data for the transverse or cross-sections here pre- 
sented were taken from the maps and profiles of the 
Commission of Engineers. 

Azimuths, in all sections, were measured from point 
on the Sixaola River. (See "Explanation of Table," 
Item III.) 

General scale adopted for all cross-sections: 

Horizontal i : 40,000 . 

Vertical i : 100 

EXPLANATION OF TABLE. 

DATA FOR POINT ON THE SIXAOLA RIVER. 

I. vSection number. 
II. Name of place. 

III. Geographical location, longitude west of Greenwich 

and latitude north. 

IV. Elevations in meters above sea level : 

(a) Bottom of the river. 

(b) River at low water. 

(c) River at high water. 

DATA FOR THE POINT LIMITING VALLEY ON THE NORTH 
SIDE OF RIVER. 

V. Distance from hydraulic axis of river. 
VI. Azimuth. 

VII. Geographical location, same as above. 
VIII. Elevation in meters above sea level. 



31 



o 

Co 

O 






> 






O rooo 00 t^ O O 



00 r^ "^ CN lo ■^ -st" looo 

0^0^0^0^0^0^0^0^0^ 



lO ON '^ O O O 
M ro w O ro 1-1 



M O O 73 



'-^ 



M ro-^iovooo O t-i CN >-,. 

CSCN(N0)MNC<lCN04'C! 

QOoooooooooooooooo a; 



>. 





00 


00 














ON 





> 


00 


CN 





00 


t^OO 


00 


00 


00 


cs 


CN 


(N 


HH 


h-( 


" 


hH 




M 



10 10 cs 

rO -^ '^ 1-1 10 


lo 


Th fO 'tJ- 10 -1- 

rO ro <^ rO fO 


ro CO 


On On On ON On 


ON On 


1-1 t~^ "+ 
rD ^ HH 


ro 


10 10 10 10 





CS n 0< M ro 

00 00 00 00 00 


ro ro 
00 00 



0000000 

ONCO On ON On ONOO 



0000 

10 o o o 
r^ O lO O 



00000^ 
O 10 10 10 O '^ 
CM r^ M w i-i '-; 

~ TO 

1-1 cs ^ 



0000000 

10 10 o O 10 1-1 1-1 
ro CN 10 X^ CO 



►> 



<o CS CS W O) CN '^rOCS ^lOrororOrOCN rOcDrOrO 



'^CNCNiCNCSCSCNMN'^fOCNCSrOrOO^CSCSMM 



O On>- ^00 -fO -vhr^iOONO rOVO ^<^rD(N^ 
►_ tH M (v| rOrOrO'^cO'^'^'^'OvOOO ►-< 1-1 



OOOOooOOOOONOOOOOOOioO 
"^roO <^l O <>) ^'^fOi-i « i^'i-r-O'+'^'-t-HH 

i~^ f0ro<^r0r0r0ror0<^<0<0r0f0'0rr)r0'"0c0r0 
OnOnOnOnOnOnOnOnOnOnOnO\OnOnOnOnOnOnOn 



t^ioOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 
.lO'OrOO'^i-iMOOOf^'OCsOcOCNOfNO 

g 1-1 ro ■^ 10 NO oOOl-l^^^^<N«N^O "ONO 00 O ^o 10 
O "^^'^■'t-^'sJ-iOiOLOLOtOiOiOiOiOiOO O O 



be 
'-S 

n! > 



o 

O 03 

§ S S 3 ^ 
CIh Q CO U ^ 






d 

03 
l-i 

o 



u 
O 



C/2C/2 



03 

^ O 
b 03 



< m o 

w N ro ■^ 100 1^00 ON On ON ON O >-i 



r) CO •^ 10 vo 



32 

Cross-vSection No. i. 
ZAVALA LANDING. 




X, Hydraulic axis of river. 

L, Point limiting vallev on north side of river. 



Cross-Section No. 2. 
NIEVECITO. 




1 nieterl above Sea level 




X, Hydraulic axis of river. 

L, Point limiting valley on north side of river. 



33 

Cross-Section No. 3. 
PARAISO. 




X, Hydraulic axis of river. 

L, Point limitiiify valley on north side of river. 



Cross-Section No. 4. 
DOS CANOS. 




X, Hydraulic axis of river. 

L, Point limiting valley on north side of river. 



Cross-vSection No. 5. 
vSANCHEZ. 




X, Hydraulic axis of river. 

Iv, Point limiting valley on north side of river. 

Cross-Section No. 6. 
CUABRE- 




11 meters iabove S^a lev^l 



_1 u. 



X, Hydraulic axis of river. 

h, Point limiting valley on north side of river. 



35 

Cross-Section No. 7. 
WATZI. 




g^a lejrel. 



X, Hydraulic axis of river. 



30 



Cross-Section No. 8. 




X, Hydraulic axis of river. 

Iv, Point limiting valley on north side of river. 



Cross-Section No. 9. 
PIKDRA GRANDE. 




X, Hydraulic axis of river. 

L, Point limiting valley on north side of river. 



38 

Cross-vSection No. 9A. 
PIEDRA GRADE. 




X, Hydraulic axis of river. 



39 

Cross-vSection No. 9B. 
PIEDRA GRANDE. 




X, Hydraulic axis of river. 



40 

Cross-vSkction No. 9C. 
PIEDRA GRANDE. 



30 meters alDOVte ^fe$ llleval 
, I III ! I L 




X, Hvdraulic aNis of river 



I5S9— a 



41 

Cross-vSection No. io. 
YORKIN. 



Sea le-^el 




X, Hydraulic axis of river. 

h, Point limiting valley on north side of river. 



42 



Cross-vSection No. ii. 



X L 



Sea leyel 




X, Hydraulic axis of river. 

L, Point limiting valley on north side of river. 



43 

Cross- vSection No. 12. 
SURETKA. 



X L 







50 metprs above ."^ea level] 



X, Hydraulic axis of river. 

L, Point limiting valley on north side of river. 



44 

Cross-.Sectiox Xo. 13. 
SHIROLI. 



58 meters^ a'ESve Sea level 




X, Hydraulic axis of river. 

L, Point limiting valley on north side of river. 



45 



Cross-vSection No. 14. 



X L 




X, Hydraulic axis of river. 

L, Point limiting valley on north side of river. 



46 

Cross-SectioxNf No. 15. 
vSIRUKICHA. 




10^ meters I a"bove $^a level 



X, Hydraulic axis of river. 



47 

Cross-vSection No. i6. 
CANON. 




109 meters jab^ve ^e;a leve l 
X, Hydraulic axis of river. 



48 





> 




O 




^ 




OJ 




r/i 




a 




o 








+-> 




rt 




> 


• 


ci; 


^1 




^ 




o 


<! 


i-s 




^) 




^ 




<l 


u 

o 


^ 


G 


^ 


(1) 


o 


-TS 




3 
-i-> 








rt 




h4 




^'' 




c; 








!? 




C 




o; 




a> 



o 



a; 

"5i) 
o 

h4 



a 
1 '■+-> 

> 

t - 

u 

<v 

> 






u 

<v 

03 

3 




o 
o 


lOOioOOOoiO 
<N ^ r^ lO rOOO o^ t^ 
IN CS (N ^VO 0\ ro^ 


6 
o 

'a, 

<-l-H 
O 

a 


• 'C 

■ J3 

: S : : : : : : 
: i5 : : ; ■ ■ ■ 

• a 


Azi- 
muth. 


oooooooo 

GO00C0000000C>ON 

l-l (H M W hi l-H 


1 

o 

o 

o 
a 

O 

o 


-i-j 

03 
h4 


:; "OOOOOOOO 
^ ^ vo O i-^\o ro 0^ 00 
o O^Q^O^O^Q^O^C^O^ 


a 
o 

k4 


^ OOC^roOOOO 
^ >r:ii^a\csioOiOLO 

OOOi-ii-i<NCSIN 
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 


1' 


J o 

0-J 


i-H M M 0) C) CN C) 0< 



ts 



^ 



ISS5>— 5 



49 

Cross-Sections. 





200; me|ters abovp ^ea level. 




£50 meteirs: aporve sea level , 




m 

440 meters abov^-^ sea level. 



50 

Cross-Sections. 



€20 




a level. 




960 meters dboiye jthe ^ea level 



No. 24 



No. 23 





13 80 metert-^ljoye ?ea lev el . 



1^50 materia abovje sea ^evel.^ 



51 

(4) The Upper Teuri. 

57. Returning again to the field we are obliged to occupy 
for the discussion of the report of the engineers, which, as 
we have just shown, is far from being the one that ought 
to furnish the ground for discussion, we come once more 
to the divide we followed in the detail map No. 2, sheet 
No. I, which, from the point where it diverges from the 
other divide that we said was at the intersection of meridian 
82° 40' 47" west longitude and parallel 9° 36' north lati- 
tude, proceeds toward the northwest in almost a straight 
line, until it reaches parallel 9° 37', which it cuts at the 
meridian of 82° 42' 52", and follows it to the meridian of 
82° 43'. Thence the divide runs southernly along this 
meridian to the parallel of 9° 36' 43", where turning 
toward the west it cuts the meridian of 82° 44' at the 
intersection of the latter with parallel 9° 36' 38", which it 
follows to regain a few seconds further on the parallel of 9° 
37', which it cuts at 82° 44' 41 " and it follows to the meridian 
of 82° 45' at the parallel 9° 37' 29", to reach Buena Vista 
at Station A-221. From this point the divide proceeds 
toward the west, some degrees to the south, until it comes 
to the meridian 82° 47' at parallel 9° 37' 05", where it con- 
fronts the course of the River Sixaola, at Sanchez Station, 
where the central office of the Engineer Corps was located. 

58. It will be noted that throughout the whole of the 
section thus far transverse of the divide there appear, flow- 
ing toward the south, manybrooks, creeks and little streams 
that are left without names upon the maps, although they 
are well known and may be found with their proper names 
on maps perhaps not so correct but yet more descriptive 
than those of the Commission. 

59. In the supplemental plan hereto appended, based 



52 

upon the originals of the Commission, after having pre- 
pared the cross-sections, the hmits of the valley have been 
determined and the line delineated. 

60. From the Sanchez Station, where the divide is found 
very close to the River Sixaola, the line proceeds toward 
the west, some degrees to the north, until it reaches Cuabre 
at meridian 82° 48' and parallel 9° 37' 30", where it is also 
very near the river. From Cuabre the divide runs on 
toward the northwest to parallel 9° 39' 28", at Station 
B-154, at an elevation of 300 meters. From this point, 
B-154, the divide follows a westerly direction, practically 
parallel to the course of the river and so continues to 
meridian 82° 54' and parallel 9° 39' 48", confining between 
the divide and the river the course of the little stream of 
Watzi, a tributary of the Sixaola on the left. 

61. Admitting that the divide delineated may really be 
the crest that bounds the watershed upon the north of the 
Sixaola, it is impossible to consider either the Watzi 
Valley or the other small valleys of the tributaries as 
the valley of the Sixaola; but neither as forming part 
of this valley, because they are essentially distinct and 
because these lands are never inundated by the big river, 
as shown by the elevations of that cordillera indicated 
upon the map of the Commission, at the foot of which the 
Sixaola flows. 

62. From the point stated, the divide proceeds toward 
the northwest, until it reaches its maximum at parallel 
9° 40' 46" and meridian 82° 55' 38", at an elevation of 470 
meters. Thence the divide proceeds rapidly toward 
the south to seek the sources of the Shiroli at Station 
B-700 shown upon the map, at an elevation of 471 meters. 
From this station the divide continues toward the west to 



53 

meridian 82° 59' 40" and parallel 9° 37' 22", almost at the 
edge of the map. 

63. But during this entire course, by looking at the 
map it can be seen that high and craggy cordilleras border 
at times the margin of the Telire, and, as has been 
explained, these cordilleras are bounding the valley of the 
Telire and not the divide, properly speaking. The foot 
of these cordilleras is the limit of the valley. Here ends 
also the map we have been examining, "Map No. 2; 
Sheet No. i." 

64. The map that continues the tracing of the divide 
is "Map No. i; Sheet No. i," upon a scale of i : 40,000. 
Here we note that the divide proceeds toward the west, 
some degrees to the north, thus separating the basins of the 
River Telire and the River Estrella, and running in front 
of Suretka and Sirukicha, parallel to the course of the 
Telire, to meridian 83° 10' and parallel 9° 38' 40", where it 
is near the apex of the "Cerro Doble." Thence the divide 
continues toward the west and reaches the meridian of 
83° 20' at Station 66-A and parallel 9° 40', from whence it 
goes southward and reaches the elevation of 3,837 meters at 
Chirripo Grande, at meridian 83°29'38" westand9° 29' 28" 
north latitude. Just at this point the divide ceases to be 
the boundary of the Telire basin upon the north and from 
this point, according to the statement of the Commission 
itself, that divide is uncertain in its continuation toward 
Durika. 

65. The plan that shows the line that separates the 
valleys of the Sixaola and Telire upon the north has been 
traced, then, according to the explanations here set forth, 
to its extremity; that is to say, to the height in front of 
Chirripo Grande at parallel 9° 35' 50" and meridian 83° 
03' 30" 



54 

66. The purpose of the long description given above 
was to carry the dehneated divide as far as Chirripo Grande. 

67. The Commission of Engineers was justified in declar- 
ing the divide beyond that point as uncertain. Indeed, 
from the heights of Chirripo toward the headwaters of the 
Teliri extends a very wide and rough country and at some 
distances apart from each other, various low ridges emerge 
that afterward become the watersheds of rivers. 

It is very difficult to distinguish between the streams 
that flow into the Upper Teliri and those that run into the 
other rivers.^ 

68. The "divide" that has been described, therefore, 
is one line among many others that could be drawn 
cuttmg numerous mountain chains that seem to run 
towards the Telire, in a direction parallel to the Great 
Cordillera that separates the waters of the two oceans. 

69. The most eloquent demonstration of this basic fact 
was submitted by the commission in the album of photo- 
graphs taken from different points of view, especially in 
photograph No. 125, and the copy upon tracing cloth, 
entitled: "View from D-82." The Station D-82 was 
located at the intersection of meridian 83° 06' 30" and 
parallel 9° 37' 50". 

70. The photographs show that there is not only one 
parallel chain, but several, and the high ranges that 
bound the course of the Telire River, which are indicated 
and laid down upon the maps, are, as well as the photo- 
graphs, the most conclusive word that could be spoken. 

71. But the Telire Valley does not penetrate so far. 
Practically, as the maps show, from Sirukicha the river 
loses its valley and the latter becomes a caiion. High 

'^See the explanation of this idea in Chapter IV, Answer to 
Question i, paragraph 3, of this paper. 



55 

mountains wall in the course of the Telire, and a little 
further on, several tributaries, with different names come 
down hemmed in likewise in deep gulches or cafions, to 
form the "Teliri. ' ' Sirukicha is located at the intersection 
of meridian 83° 03' 20" west with parallel 9° 35' 45" 
north latitude. 

This geographic characteristic feature has always 
marked the proper distinction between the two rivers, the 
Sixaola and the Telire. The Sixaola has a valley whereas 
the Telire does not. 

According to the maps of the Commission and Plate No. 
II of this Report, the valley of the Telire ends at Piedra 
Grande, where it is restricted by dikes. From Piedra 
Grande to Sirukicha there is a narrow strip of land called 
the Telire Valley. 

The Indians and the people of the place give the name 
of Tarire, Telire or Telidi to one of the tributaries of the 
Sixaola, not certainly the main, which discharges its water 
near Suretka. 



CHAPTER III. 



SOME EXPLANATIONS AS TO THE TRACING OF 
THE LINE THAT CLOSES THE VALLEY OF THE 
SIXAOLA UPON THE NORTH. 

1. In the preceding chapter the method adopted for 
tracing this Hne was indicated, in accord with the data 
furnished by the maps and profiles the Commission 
submitted. 

2. The scale for horizontal distances is the same as 
that of the maps, i : 40,000 ; but it was found necessary 
to enlarge the scale for the elevations to i : 100, for the 
purpose of exhibiting more clearly the cross-sections. 

3. The character of the ground at each cross-section 
is indicated by the same colors as those used upon the 
geological map of the Commission, so that it was needless 
to repeat the legend as to their signification. 

4. Where no color appears upon a cross-section, it is 
because upon the map nothing was specified by the 
geologist. 

5. These explanations having been made, it is proper 
to state here an important justification for the tracing 
that is presented, based upon the same data furnished 
by the Report of the Commission. 

6. Concisely stated the argument is as follows: What 
is the valley of the River Sixaola upon the north side, 
and how far does it extend? By what documents is the 
tracing that is now presented supported? 

7 . In two separate inquiries as to the precise and correct 
interpretation of the terms, "valleys" and "basins," one 
prepared by the Professor of Geology from Lehigh Uni- 
versity, South Bethlehem, Pa., and the other by the 

56 



57 

author of this report, the condensed opinion of the highest 
authorities is given as to the strict technical appUcation 
of these words, "valleys" and "basins," and those papers 
complete this study. But they will be disregarded, for the 
moment, so as to locate the tracing by taking only the 
same interpretation as the engineers of the Commission 
gave to these terms. 

8. It is very certain that the Geologist of the Com- 
mission stated his own opinions in this respect in his 
report, where he says among other things: 

"In prehistoric times, then, practically all of the 
creeks including Gadokan and those northeast of it, 
which now flow into the ocean, were tributaries of the 
Sixaola River; so that within a few hundred or some 
thousands of years the old natural drainage basin of 
the Sixaola on the northwest side of the river, below 
La Cana Creek, has been modified by losing some 
of its tributaries. This introduces a sharp distinction 
betw;een the Sixaola Valley proper and the present 
Sixaola drainage area. ' ' (Report of the Geologist, p. 24.) 

9. Before citing other paragraphs from this document, 
it will be well to briefly consider the foregoing on account 
of its fundamental importance in this controversy. 

10. It is very evident that the paragraph contains two 
things. The first is the hypothesis formulated by the 
Geologist in the statement that some thousands of years 
ago the basin of the Sixaola embraced the basin of the 
rivers that now discharge their waters directly into the 
ocean. The second is a fact: that is to say, that in the 
present epoch, the basin of the Sixaola is limited and dift'ers 
in its character from the basins of the other rivers that now 
discharge their waters into the ocean. The dilemma can 
be very easily solved by electing between the hypothesis 
and the fact. 



58 

1 1 . This fundamental fact, clearly brought out by the 
very author who undertakes to deprive it of effect, is the 
best proof that we adduce to establish once for all that 

the basin of the Sixaola is foreign, in the present epoch, to 
the basins of the Gadokan and the other rivers that discharge 
their waters directly into the ocean to the west of the Sixaola. 

12. The Geologist corroborates the fact that he brings 
out when he says: 

"The present Sixaola drainage, comparatively re- 
cently modified, geologically speaking, as it has been, 
is but a detail of the large unit." (Report of the 
Geologist, p. 25). 

13. While not deeming it needful to question the 
hypothesis, at least, of the Geologist, we take what he 
states to be an actual and present fact, that the Sixaola 
Valley at the present day is but a detail of what it for- 
merly was. 

14. Agreeing with the Geologist, the Commission recog- 
nized that a kilometer below Piedra Grande a dike of 
biotite-basalt-porphyry was thrown out toward the river 
from the opposite side,^ and as he literally states: 

15. " The Sixaola Valley here has been restricted by 
these difficultly erodable rocks. Just below here it 
widens out into what may be called the lower Sixaola 
Valley, and above here into the wide, flat upper vSixa- 
ola or Talamanca Valley."" 

16. The author here could not have been more exphcit 
or clear. He had before him his own map which he sub- 
mits, from which it appears that the point he refers to, 
situated a kilometer below Piedra Grande, is distant 6,667 

^Report of the Geologist, p. 30. 
^Report of the Geologist, p. 31. 



59 

meters to the south of the divide we have just defined as 
the Hmit of the valley, and at this point he declares: "The 
Sixaola Valley here has been restricted by these difficultly 
erodable rocks." Still fearing that he had not made his 
idea sufficiently clear and precise, he undertook to get at 
the reason for the restriction of the valley at this point, 
and added: "Now, this restriction of the Sixaola Valley 
could only be caused by * * *"^ And he went on to 
say, further: "The chief factor in the restriction of the 
valley here, then, is undoubtedly * * *."^ 

17. There was, then, no lapsus calami in the statement 
of the Geologist that "the Sixaola Valley here has been 
restricted," because he immediately afterward twice con- 
firms it by pointing out the causes for such restriction. 

18. The efi"ect of this was to put the Geologist of the 
Commission in harmony with it and with all of the highest 
authorities in the matter, as regards the precise and correct 
definition of a "valley," which is entirely distinct from the 
"basin" that is bounded by the divide. 

19. vStarting then from this categorical basis, going 
down the vSixaola Valley it widened out, as the Commission 
indicated by the absence of level-curves, and more explic- 
itly when it said : 

"In practically every case the flat ground extending 
toward the vSixaola River from the lowest contour 
shown on the map is marshy."^ 

20. As may be seen by the map submitted, these details 
have been minutely followed in its preparation and espe- 



'Report of the Geologist, p. 31. 
-Report of the Geologist, p. 31. 
•^Report of the Commission, p. 29. 



60 

cially in tracing the line that separates or Hmits the valley 
of the river upon the north. 

21. The cross-section No. 9-A shows very clearly the 
restriction referred to in the Geologist's Report. The rest 
of the cross-sections farther down stream, as well as those 
traced up stream, show the point limiting the valley that 
edges the left bank of the Sixaola upon its north side. 

22. Even at Zavala Landing, according to what is sub- 
mitted by the Commission, there is no divide visible, and 
down stream to the coast no level-contours appear. 

23. In conformity with this description the first cross- 
section was drawn at Zavala Landing and at this very 
point is where the line begins that separates or limits the 
Valley of the Sixaola upon the north. 

24. In the same way, going up stream from cross-section 
No 9-A at Piedra Grande, other cross-sections were drawn, 
No. 9-B, No. 9-C and No. 10, and thence on to No. 15 at 
vSirukicha, where the narrowing valley closed in and 
came to an end, the canon of the river continuing in that 
form onward to its headwaters. That is the reason that 
justifies the termination of the line limiting upon the north 
the valleys of the Sixaola and Telire rivers, as may be 
seen upon the map, at the place named vSirukicha, indicated. 

25. This demonstrates, therefore, to satiety, the origin 
and the reason for the line which has been traced upon 
the maps of the Commission and based upon its own ideas. 

26. There would scarcely remain the least doubt in 
respect to the valleys of the tributaries upon the left side 
of said rivers, but for the difference made by the Com- 
mission between the valleys of the tributaries of the 
rivers and that of the rivers themselves. Among other 
citations that might be made from its report, it is 
sufficient to quote the fundamental one : 



61 

"The headwaters of these streams are between 
the various branches of the lower or ocean end of the 
ridges or series of ridges, just as various tributaries 
of the Sixaola have their headwaters between the 
other branches on the same side of the upper portion 
of the same ridge or series of ridges. Broadly speak- 
ing, the small areas drained by these streams would 
in general be understood as included when speaking 
of the valley of the Sixaola, although technically they 
are independent valleys."^ 

27. So fundamental an assertion, which is moreover in 
accord with the opinions of the most eminent authorities 
upon the subject, is the one which has been followed so 
as not to include in the Sixaola and Telire Valleys the 
small valleys of the tributaries upon the north of that river. 

28. That the Commission was in accord with what the 
Geologist laid down as. the "Valley of the Sixaola," and 
has just been stated, is not only confirmed by the fact 
that it adopted his report, but also that in referring to 
the order in which the work was carried on, it said : 

"In the interval from June 2 to September 16, 
Party C extended a continuous triangulation * * * 
and secured measured directions and vertical angles 
to many peaks on the main cordillera from Pico 
Blanco to Durika, inclusive, and to many other 
summits, especially on the slopes toward the Tala- 
manca Valley."^ 

29. Party C was engaged in the reconnaissance of the 
cordillera and frorn thence fixed points upon the slopes 
that led to the valley of Talamanca, from which it may 

^Report of the Commission, pp. 50, 51. 
^Report of the Commission, pp. 37, 38. 

ISS9-6 



62 

be inferred that the Commission considered these slopes 
also as forming the basin, but not the valley of Talamanca. 

30. The map to which this chapter relates is thus left 
firmly established in all its parts. 

The whole "North Divide of the drainage area of the 
River Sixaola," as has been plotted from the maps of the 
Commission, is the North Divide of the drainage areas 
of the rivers Sixaola and Telire or Teliri, because from the 
mouth of the Yorkin the River is always called Telire or 
Teliri River. 



CHAPTER IV. 



ANSWERS 

TO THE QUEvSTlONS PROPOSED BY COSTA RICA 
AND PANAMA TO THE COMMISSION OF 
ENGINEERS 

In the order in which the Commission submitted 

THEM FOR the examination OF THE ASSISTANT- 

Engineers in the Field. 



(i) Is it a fact, or not, that all the detached buttresses 
or spurs of the Cordilleras to the left of the River Tarire, 
up-stream from the face of the mouth of the Yorquin, 
have their axes in a Northwest direction and approximate 
courses; and that they form the divisions of the waters 
of the various tributaries of the River Tarire on said 
left bank, which tributaries, by reason of the depths of their 
valleys transverse to the Tarire, prevent the existence of a 
continuous chain of elevations having the character of a 
spur and fulfilling the two conditions of 

(a) Uniting the extreme of Punta Mona with the 
Main Cordillera that divides the waters that flow to 
one ocean and to the other; and 

(b) Closing on the north the valley of the River 
Sixaola or Tarire. 

(63) 



64 

ANSWER. 

1 . Yes, it is a fact ; the m^aps and reports are in accord- 
ance with the text of this question. 

2. The summary of the documents shows that no con- 
tinuous chain of elevations exists, having the character of 
a ridge or spur, starting from the cordillera that separates 
the waters of the two oceans and ending at Punta Mona. 

The low ridges that border the sources of the Teliri 
upon the north, do not start from any point on the Main 
Cordillera^ 

3. The point marked by the Commission as the junction 
of the divide limiting upon the north the Sixaola Basin with 
the Main Cordillera (Chirripo Grande), at the intersection 
of parallel 9° 29' 28" north latitude and the meridian of 
83° 29' 38" west of Greenwich- is arbitrary, because the 
same map and the report indicate the Main Cordillera as 
uncertain from the point marked to the intersection of 
meridian 83° 30' 00" and parallel 9° 27' 30", with an 
elevation similar to that of Chirripo Grande. Between 
these limits, the distance of which is 3,735 meters, there 
are not only one but many points from which divides 
originate for a multitude of rivulets, symmetrical in their 
situation and parallels, that further on form the canon of 
the Upper Teliri. 

To make this topography clear, extend the right hand 
upon a flat surface. The little finger will represent the 
Main Cordillera, the thumb will indicate the initial de- 
pressions of the springs that go to form later the Upper 
Teliri and the forefinger will represent the peak of Chir- 
ripo Grande. The back of the hand between the little 
finger and the thumb will represent the high plateau to 
which reference was made in chapter II, paragraph 67. 

^^ Photograph Album of the Commission; Photograph No. 125. 
-Report of the Commisson, p. 59. 
^Idem, p. 57. 



65 

4- Those divides of the rivulets pointed out first form 
the steep bluffs that constitute the continuous canon of 
the River Teliri, from its sources to Sirukicha.^ 

5. At Station A-221, located at Buena Vista, according 
to the maps and Report of the Commission (p. 30), the 
divide cannot follow the line that is marked from there. 
It only requires an examination of the map to see that the 
divide must proceed from thence toward the north by 
greater and more regular elevations than those it was 
obliged to follow. That tracing, contrary to the natural 
topography revealed by those very maps, is at variance 
with the very data upon which it is based." 

6. According to the contour levels shown upon those 
maps, the divide ought to proceed from said Station A-221 
toward the north. 

7. From Station A-221 a secondary branch starts, which 
proceeds almost parallel to the Sixaola, and from which, 
in its turn, two other small inferior branches are diverted 
toward the south; the one that runs to its end between 
Middle Creek and Gadokan, and the one that lies between 
Gadokan and the Sixaola,'' which are permanent and are 
only submerged during brief periods of high water in the 
rivers and near their outlet.^ 

^Appendix No. 3; Report of Mr. E- R. Martin, p. 14. 
-Map of the Commission No. 2, Sheet No. i, and Report of 
the Commission, p. 30. ^mUmA 

^Legend on map of Commission No. 2, Sheet|No.|i. 



66 

8. In an arbitrary and hypothetical way a divide was 
delineated from the point at 82° 40' 46" west of Greenwich 
and 9° 36' north latitude, situated upon that secondary 
branch referred to in the preceding paragraph (No. 7), 
so as to run it across by a capricious zigzag and upon a 
purely imaginary line and make it terminate at Punta 
Mona/ 

9. This divide, as has been described in the foregoing 
section, never closes the northern limit of the basin of 
theSixaola; but, as stated by the Commission, the whole 
north divide is not always and perhaps only at times the 
north limit of the drainage area of the Sixaola and Telire 
rivers.^ 

10. Punta Mona is completely isolated from the other 
solid ground by Swamp A, shown by the maps, which 
extends beyond Manzanillo as far as Grape Point. ^ 

1 1 . The valleys of the tributaries of the Sixaola are, 
technically speaking, "independent valleys."^ 

II. 

(2) Is it a fact, or not, that the geological character of 
the Main Cordillera, dividing the waters of the two oceans, 
is eruptive and is particularly characterized by crystalline 
rocks ; that its buttresses and spurs have the same nature ; 
and that said buttresses and spurs, upon the left bank 
of the Sixaola, come to an end before they reach the front 
of the outlet of the River Yorquin into the Sixaola, to 
which and even above such outlet the deltic formation of 

^Map of Commission No. 2, Sheet No. 2; Report of Commis- 
sion, p. 55. 

-Report of Commission, p. 5. 
^Idem, p. 30. 
^Idem, p. 51. 



67 

the said Sixaola extends, as before indicated, level and 
subject to overflow? 

ANSWER. 

1. The report of the Geologist, agreeing with Gabb,i 
answers this question affirmatively. 

2. The Main Cordillera is made up of eruptive rocks, 
lavas, etc.,' "acid type," that is, crystalline rocks, and 
its offshoots are of the same character, like the great dike 
of Piedra Grande.'' 

3. The same Geologist also says that the Main Cordil- 
lera and its immediate spurs are a much older formation 
than the lands near the coast. ^ 

4. The rocks called by the Geologist "Basics," and 
which in petrography or the science of the constitution of 
rocks are synonomous with crystalline rocks,'^ terminate 
at Piedra Grande, in the same massif (solid mass) that 
appears at the mouth of the Yorkin.*^ 

III. 

(3) Ascertain and report whether there is a central 
chain of mountains, ridge or main divide between the 
waters that run into the Pacific and those that run into 
the Atlantic Ocean. 

If there is any such divide, we will, for convenience, 
call it by the letter "M." 

^Report of Geologist, pp. 11, 12. 

-Doctor Karsten, 1886, confirms these opinions (Libr. of 
Congress) . 

^Report of Geologist, pp. 11, 12. 

^"Bedded variety from Cuabre to Punta Mona." Report of 
Geologist, p. 30. 

Supplemental report by Commissioner Hodgdon, p. 12. 

^English Diet., by Isaac Funk. Edition, 1906. 

^Geological map of Commission. 



68 



ANSWER. 

I. It is evident that a mountain chain does exist that 
separates the waters of the two oceans ; but it has not been 
fully localized, especially in the most important section, of 
45 kilometers, from Dome to the peak marked "Possibly 
Cerro Pando."^ 

IV. 

(4) Ascertain and report whether there is a branch, sec- 
ondary divide or counterfort of the central chain or main 
divide "M," running from "M" toward Punta Mona and 
ending at or near said Punta Mona. 

If any such branch, secondary divide or counterfort 
exists, we will, for convenience, call it by the letter "C;" 
and the point of intersection of "M" and "C" we will, 
for convenience, designate by the letter "I." 

ANSWER. 

1 . This question has been answered negatively in every 
particular, in the paragraphs comprising the answer to the 
first question, based upon the same citations there made 
from the report and maps of the Commission. 

2. It is not enough that a line be marked upon a map; 
it is necessary and indeed indispensable that the Hne that is 
delineated be justified, meeting each and every one of the 
conditions it ought to have. 

3. In geometry, for example, all the elements of the 
equation x^+y^^r^ represent a circumference, and any 
element that does not satisfy that equation cannot form a 
part of the circumference in question. 

4. So, in the present case under discussion, the line 
asked for in the question is a crest, summit or divide line, 

^Report of Commission, pp. 57, 58. Legend on map, No. 4. 



69 

which, diverging from the Main Cordillera, runs con- 
tinuously and uniformly until it ends at Punta Mona, and 
moreover it must close upon the north the basin of the 
Sixaola. 

5. The report and maps of the Commission show that 
the line therein described does not meet the conditions that 
have been stated. That line is marked, moreover, with 
different signs during its course, indicating a lack of unity 
and a different character between one section and another,^ 
and even going so far as to admit, with the purpose of 
terminating at Punta Mona: 

(i) An imaginary course," 

(2) An approximate course,'' 

(3) Another uncertain course,^ and lastly 

(4) Two arbitrary courses.^ 

6. Not only did the Commission begin the line at a point 
more or less questionable, on account of the uncertainty 
that it confesses itself does exist^ in the section between 
Chirripo Grande and Durika;^ not only did it inter- 
polate a course that it termed "approximate" and another 
course of nineteen kilometers that is deemed "uncertain;" 
but in order to force the line and make it end at Punta 
Mona it was also compelled, and this against the very data 
that it set forth and by which alone the act could be justi- 
fied, to cut low elevations and follow secondary depressions. 

legend on the Commission maps. 

-Report of the Commission, p. 55. 

^"From the Coast to a point at latitude 9° 33'. 9 and longitude 
82° 39'. 3." Report of the Commission, pp. 53, 54. 

^" With the exception of the short gap of 19 kilometers between 
D-629 and A-2511." Report of the Commission, pp. 54, 57. 

^See paragraphs 3 and 7 of answer to first question and level 
curves on the maps clearly showing such arbitrary character. 

^Report of the Commission, p. 57. 

^Chirripo Grande is the starting point, according to the maps. 



70 

This was done, as we observe, from Buena Vista, at Sta- 
tion A-22I, and further on at the point 82° 40' 5" west of 
Greenwich and 9° 36' 00", where arbitrarily, without being 
justified by any document, two tracings were made for the 
purpose of continuing the desired divide line;^ and yet 
notwithstanding all these irregularities, any one of which 
would be enough of itself to destroy the concept of a con- 
tinuous contrefort (spur) between Punta Mona and the 
Cordillera, it was not possible to make it end at the ter- 
minus desired, except by means of an arbitrary and hypo- 
thetical line, imaginary and invisible ! 

V. 

(5) Ascertain and report the approximate latitude and 
longitude of the point " I , " at which the divide " C " inter- 
sects the main divide "M;" also the approximate latitude 
and longitude of Pico Blanco and Cerro Pando. 

ANSWER. 

1. The point arbitrarily designated by the Commission 
for the start of the supposed divide which should end near 
Grape Point, was the peak of Chirripo Grande, situated 
at 83° 29' 38" west of Greenwich and 9° 29' 28" north 
latitude." 

2. Pico Blanco is situated at 83° 02' 14" west of Green- 
wich and 9° 16' 39'' north latitude.^ 

3. Cerro Pando (the peak of Pando), uncertainly located 
according to the statement of the Commission in its report 
(P- 59)' ^s at 82° 49'.! west of Greenwich and 9° 02'.5 
north latitude. 

'Report of Engineer Smith, Appendix No. 3, p. 11. 
-Report of the Commission, p. 59. 
^Idcm, p. 59. 



71 

4- Pico Blanco does not belong to the divide but is found 
upon the Atlantic slope. ^ 

VI. 

(6) Make a general topographical survey and plan of 
the main divide "M" from Cerro Pando, near parallel 9*^ 
north of the equator, to the point " I " at which begins the 
branch, secondary divide or counterfort "C," which runs 
toward and ends at or near Punta Mona. 

Locate the main peaks of "M" between Cerro Pando 
and "I." 

ANSWER. 

1. The line is uncertain from Chirripo Grande as far as 
Durika.^ 

2. From Durika to Dome it appears to be localized,^ 
but from Dome, the situation of which is 83° 07' 15" west 
of Greenwich and 9° 02' 30" north latitude, the Hne is once 
more uncertain, as far as the peak which the Commission 
refers to as "Possibly Cerro Pando," at longitude 82° 49'.! 
and 9° 02 '.5 north latitude,^ over a distance of 45 kilo- 
meters.^ 

VII. 

(7) Make a topographical survey and plan of the divide 
"C" which limits the drainage area of the River Tarire, 
Teliri, Telidi or Sixaola on the northern side of this river; 
this survey and topographical plan to extend from the 
central ridge or main divide "M" down to the sea at or 
near Punta Mona. 

^Report of the Commission, p. 58. 
"Report of the Commission, p. 57. 
^Legend map no. i , sheet No. i ; and report of the Commission, 

PP- 57. 58. 
^Map No. 4. 
^See Map No. 4. 



72 



ANSWER. 



1. The Commission has traced upon the maps the hne 
that separates, at times, not always,' the basin of the 
Sixaola and Tehre from others situated to the west, but 
according to its own statement- between Stations D-629 
and A-251 1 the Hne is uncertain. 

2. As there must necessarily be a continuous line, sepa- 
rating the basin of the Sixaola from the others that remain 
to the north and to the west, and the line the Commission 
has traced, as it states in its report separates its basin 
sometimes, not always, from those of the others, it is 
evident that the line traced upon the maps has no relation 
to the one that is being discussed. 

3. There may be repeated here what was said in that 
respect in the answer to Question VI, and so far as appli- 
cable the paragraphs in the response to Question I. 

VIII. 
(8) Make a topographical survey and plan of the course 
of the River Tarire, Teriri, Telidi or Sixaola, from the 
main divide "M" down to its mouth on the Atlantic 
Ocean; and locate the points of junction of said river 
with its main affluents on either side of the said river 
Tarire, Teriri, Telidi or Sixaola. 

ANSWER. 

1. The maps of the Commission delineate the entire 
course of the Rivers Sixaola and Telire. Some tributaries 
appear without names, but it is easy to recognize them. 

2. These tributaries or affluents have their independent 
valleys, according to the specific text of the report of the 

^Report of the Commission, p. 5. 
^Idem, p. 54. 



73 

Commission, 1 and do not form a part of the Sixaola 
and Telire Valley s.- 

3. Here, then, is the proper place to state a new phase 
of the whole question. 

If, as claimed, both the valleys of the tributaries upon 
the left side of the Telire and Sixaola,'^ as well as those 
of the rivers that empty directly into the ocean," ought to 
be included or incorporated in the Sixaola Valley ; 

If, as the Report of the Geologist says, the higher land 
of Punta Mona ought to be a part of the same geological 
unit as the Buena Vista divide,*^ when he says: 

"The Sixaola Valley proper is the large geological 
unit and it extends out of the Crest of the Buena 
Vista Divide, and to the higher land of Punta Mona :" ^ 

If the whole of the basin now foreign to that of the 
Sixaola and Telire, which encloses the high and low lands 
of Gadokan, Punta Mona, Manzanillo and as far as 
Grape Point, because Swamp A reaches that far,' must 
be understood as the Sixaola and Telire basin. 

Then, it is clear that the real, geographical, only and un- 
questionable divide, and the one that accommodates itself 
to these strange conclusions is the one that starts from Buena 
Vista, at Station A-221 and runs to Codes Point and which 
the Commission abandoned and disregarded in order to go 
back and follow, as has already been explained, in an arbi- 
trary and contradictory way, according to the tenor of its 
own statement, from Buena Vista, a divide that divides the 
waters of the same River Sixaola. 

^Report of the Commission, pp. 50, 51. 

^Archibald Geikie, p. 179, is also in accord with this principle. 

"^Report of the Commission, p. 50. 

"/Jem, p. 50, 51. 

^Report of the Geologist, p. 22. 

^Ideni, p. 25. 

^Report of the Commission, pp. 29, 30, 51, 56. 



74 

4- We are led to this inexorable conclusion by the 
condensation in the foregoing paragraph of the various 
opinions in that respect stated by the Commission. 

5. And in that divide the climax is reached, making it 
end by an imaginary straight line across a swamp, at 
sea level, frequently inundated, where no divide had ever 
existed, nor any signs of being able to trace one, in a marsh 
which neither the Commission, nor its Assistant Engineers, 
nor even its laborers were able to cross. ^ 

6. It would, therefore, seem to be more logical, inas- 
much as it is claimed that the basin of the Watzi forms 
a part of the valley of the Sixaola, that the divide should 
proceed closing also the north side of said Watzi Basin, 
and continue by the divide that terminates at the coast. 

IX. 

(9) Make a topographical survey and plan of the terri- 
tory lying between the River Tarire, Teriri, Telidi or 
Sixaola and the divide "C." 

It is sufficient to indicate the most important points 
of this territory. 

ANSWER. 

1. For the series of reasons stated by the Commission, 
already indicated, the topography of this territory remains 
uncertain. - 

2. It would be necessary to have the data indicated by 
the Commission as doubtful, uncertain and approximate, 
given their proper value and situation for the topography 
requested to be correct. 

^See chapter VI. 

'Report of the Commission, pp. 49, 57. 



75 

3- The data introduced of a hypothetical character 
would have to be excluded and those of an arbitrary 
nature abandoned. 

X. 

(lo) Ascertain and report whether the valley of the 
Sixaola or Tarire River is closed on the north by a divide, 
counterfort or branch of the main divide "M." 

ANSWER. 

1. In conformity v/ith the scientific definition of the 
word "valley," as established by the Commission/ 
" * * * , that is to say, the topography is to indi- 
cate the break between the hills and the plain," the Valley 
of the Sixaola is not closed by the divide that encloses 
its basin. 

2. The line that closes the Valleys of the Sixaola and 
Telire upon the north has been traced, using the data fur- 
nished by the maps of the Commission and its own reports 
in respect to the point where the valley is restricted to the 
very bed of the stream, as is the case at Piedra Grande." 

3. In Cuabre " * * * a narrow strip of fiat land 
lies between the hill and the river. " The valley is so 
narrow here that the Commission did not undertake to 
designate it by its name, but called it "* * * a narrow 
strip of land." 

4. The most conclusive statement in regard tothcvSixaola 
Valley is that made by the Commission in its report (p. 52, 
top) : 

"In some places the banks are so steep that exten- 
sive slides are taking place; and in one place, south of 



'Report of the Commission, p. 28. Hodgdon report, p. 6. 
-Report of the Geologist, p. 31. 



76 

Cerro Doble, it is known that such slides temporarily 
dam the river until the water by accumulation 
behind it creates sufficient power to cut its way 
through the slides." 

XI. 

(ii) Ascertain and report whether said counterfort or 
branch of the main divide "M" has several sub-branches or 
spurs, running approximately from northwest to south- 
east ; and whether one of these ends near the Sixaola River, 
opposite or nearly opposite the mouth of the Yurquin. 

ANSWER. 

I. From the ridge that borders the bed of the Sixaola 
upon its north side, in front of the mouth of the Yorkin, a 
prominent and irregular elevation extends that runs first 
to the north, afterward to the west and then to the north 
again and reaches the crest of the basin of the vSixaola.^ 

XII. 

(12) Is it a fact, or not, that all the territory com- 
prised between the left bank of the mouth of the River 
Sixaola in the Atlantic Ocean and Punta Mona, inclusive, 
as well as that which extends toward the interior for many 
miles distance, forming part of the delta of said river, is 
made up of sedimentary matter carried by fluvial action, 
and presents a level area, low and in many places marshy? 

ANSWER. 

1. The maps of the Commission answer all the points 
in this question in the affirmative. 

2. The Report of the Commission corroborates them by 
saying: (p. 29). 

'Report of the Commission, p. 52. 



77 

"In practically every case that flat ground extend- 
ing toward the Sixaola River from the lowest contour 
shown on the map is marshy, except where the land is 
cultivated and has been drained." 

3. The swamp of Punta Mona extends beyond Manzan- 
illo, as far as Grape Point. ^ 

XIII. 

(13) Is it a fact, or not, that the principal elevation of 
land existing at the said Punta Mona, washed in part by 
the waters of the sea, is found to be separated from the 
remainder of the area of said delta by a deep and per- 
manent morass, of some miles in width, which isolates it 
completely from the rest of the delta mentioned? 

ANSWER. 

1. The maps as well as the Report of the Commission 
(p. 51) establish the fact that Punta Mona is separated 
from the rest of the mainland by the swamp of some two 
kilometers in width. 

2. In periods of high water this swamp is inundated 
{ibid, p. 51). 

XIV. 

(14) Is it a fact, or not, that said small elevation of land 
of Punta Mona is of recent geological formation, made up 
of a prodigious growth of coral rock upon the banks of 
sand, and in turn upon this coral rock by the deposit of 
clay and yellow dirt which have formed the rocks that are 
found all along the littoral of the vSea of the Antilles, and 
which Professor Gabb, of Philadelphia, has designated by 
the special name of " Antillita" (Little Antilla)? 

^Report of the Commission, p. 30. 

1559—7 



78 



ANSWER. 



1. The Geologist reports that the ground at Punta 
Mona is of the same character as that found upon the 
other side of the vSwamp A/ 

2. Although the Commissioner, Mr. Hodgdon, does not 
describe this ground and refers to the opinion of the 
Geologist, it appears: 

(a) That the Geologist did not visit Punta Mona per- 
sonally," because Punta Mona, according to his own map^ 
which he presents on a scale of i : 40,000, is located 
at 82° 37' 30" west longitude from Greenwich, and his 
personal investigations began at meridian 82° 38' west of 
Greenwich, leaving the whole of the territory between the 
mouth of the Sixaola, 82° 34' 50" west of Greenwich and 
half of a maritime mile farther to the west than Punta 
Mona outside of his personal examination; or, that is to 
say, a distance embraced between the meridians of 82° 
34' 50" and 82° 38', which is equivalent to 5,852 meters; 
and 

(b) That admitting what the Geologist says in respect 
to the ground of Punta Mona, the result is that from some 
distance above Cuabre toward the Caribbean vSea, the 
region is part of what was comprised in the coastal plains 
of the Caribbean,* and to corroborate this, the Geologist 
added : 

"The ocean ward fringe of these coastal plains con- 
sists in many places of extensive black mud swamps 
and swampy coral flats."* 



'vSupplemental Report by Commissioner Hodgdon, p. 10. 
"Report of the Geologist, \y. 9, section A. 
^Report of the Geologist, p. 9, section B. 
^Jdem, p. 9. 



79 

3- Gabb designates these lands by the name of " Aiitil- 
lita,'' not "Little Antilla," but as lands belonging to the 
whole of the coasts of the mainland, like the islands of the 
Sea of the Antilles. 

4. The hypothesis of the Geologist in respect to the 
prehistoric sinking of that region cannot be a subject for 
consideration here in view of the facts he himself states. 

XV. 

(15) Is it a fact, or not, that the said elevation of Punta 
Mona is only connected with some hills of analogous char- 
acter, parallel to the coast and which terminate in the 
point called Manzanillo, situated some four kilometers 
distant to the west of that point? 

ANSWER. 

1. Punta Mona, with its adjacent hills that extend to 
Manzanillo, all consisting of coral rock, is found to be con- 
stantly and always separated from the rest of the main 
land by Swamp A. There is not the slightest evidence of 
that locality being the end of any ridge or spur from the 
principal chain of mountains that divides the waters of the 
two oceans. 

2. The hypothetical creation of an end of a spur or 
counterfort there, is a fiction that leads to the most extra- 
vagant conclusions. 

3. The topography of the ground, at least, does not 
suggest it. 

4. Nor does the character of the ground permit its 
supposition. 

5. The plans and the longitudinal profile, especially, 
submitted by the Commission, afford the most eloquent 
testimony to the truth of this statement. 



so 

6. The profile shows Punta Mona as an island separated 
from the main land by a flat swamp, "at the sea level," as 
we understand, which is impassable and is inundated, the 
waters of the Sixaola then being confused with those of 
the Gadokan and the others of the basin that discharge 
their waters directly into the Atlantic, and those of the 
Gadokan with those of the vSixaola, according to the posi- 
tive expression of the report. 

XVI. 

(i6) Is it a fact, or not, that said elevation of Punta 
Mona and the hills that form its continuation to Man- 
zanillo, from the materials of which it is composed, and 
from the absence of any mountain or cordillera from 
which it runs off or to which it relates, does not constitute 
a buttress or spur, but a series of small, isolated hills? 

ANSWER. 

I. Yes. The text of this question is answered in the 
response to the one preceding and in the. others that relate 
to the situation and the character of the ground consti- 
tuting the isolated elevations of Punta Mona and Manza- 
nillo. 

XVII. 

(17) Is it a fact, or not, that said hills, all lying between 
Punta Mona and Manzanillo, inclusive, are, like the eleva- 
tion of Punta Mona, separated from the rest of the delta 
of the River Sixaola by a barrier of impassable swamps, 
many miles in width? 

ANSWER. 

I. According to the maps and the Report of the Com- 
mission (p. 51), vSwamp A, which separates Punta Mona 
and Manzanillo from the mainland, measures two kilo- 



81 

meters in its middle and average width. It extends 
beyond JManzanillo and reaches as far as Pimta Uva 
(Grape Point). (Idciu, p. 30.) 

In times of high water this Swamp A "is flooded," and 
then its width extends to the last contour line indicated 
upon the maps). {Idem, p. 51.) 

XVIII. 

(18) Is it a fact, or not, that across the said swamps, 
in the interior of the delta of the Sixaola, all the elevations 
of land that are detached upon the left zone of that river 
are of recent geological sedimentary formation, of an 
analogous character to that of the hills of the coast, and 
the aforesaid elevations, from the materials of which they 
are composed and the lack of connection with cordilleras 
or mountains of which they form a continuation, cannot 
constitute a buttress or spur^ 

ANSWER. 

1. The Report of the Engineer of Party A, Mr. Weak- 
land, asserts that being located personally at vStation 6, 
which was a point between Middle Creek and Manzanillo, 
all the elevations surrounding it in every direction of the 
compass are of coral formation.' 

2. Such ground is entirely distinct from that constitut- 
ing the central mass (massif), which is composed of basic 
rocks, as the Geologist terms them; that is, having a 
crystalline structure. - 

3. The different nature of the two grounds, which the 
same Geologist separates into three physiographic unities, 
a subdivision that is not new to one who has read the 

^Appendix No. 3, report of Mr, Weakland, p. 2. 
-Report of the Geologist, pp. 11 and 12. 



82 

work entitled: "Rivers of North America," by Israel C. 
Russell, Professor of Geology in the University of Michigan 
(1898, p. 97; Chap. V; "vStream Deposits"), shows that 
the hills of Punta Mona bear no relation to the Main 
Cordillera, or to the spurs or counterforts (buttresses) 
attached thereto. 



CHAPTER V. 



THE STARTING POINT, UPON THE MAPS OF THE 
COMMISSION,OFTHE SUPPOSED DIVIDE, MARKED 
WITH TWO BLACK CONTINUOUS AND PARALLEL 
LINES. 

I. The maps and reports of the Commission have been 
examined very carefully and at length, in relation to the 
starting point of a supposed divide, marked by two 
continuous and parallel lines, designated upon the maps 
by the legend: ''Divide which is the north limit of the area 
which drains into the Atlantic further south than Punta 
Mona." This, it may be remarked in passing, as its very 
name indicates, has nothing to do with the question under 
discussion in this controversy and no sort of a basis for the 
tracing of any such line having been found in the maps and 
reports, an application was made at the office of the Com- 
mission for the field notes of Party A, and also for the map 
submitted by the Representative of Panama to said Com- 
mission, without any title, but bearing at the bottom a 
note which (translated) reads as follows: 

"Note. — The line indicates the summit 

of the Cordillera that runs from Los Andes to Punta 
deAIonos or Punta Carreta. This ridge is the boundary 
between Panama and Costa Rica, according to the 
Award of M. Loubet. 

"(Signed) ABEL BRAVO, C. E. 
"Panama. December, 1910. Scale, i : 40,000." 

The field books for this section are twenty-five in 
number. In the first of these, referring to the survey 
from Cuabrc to Punta Mona, it does not appear that the 

(83) 



84 

engineer made any note or marked any stake of deviation 
from the principal line that was run. 

2. In the field book "3-A," there is found repeatedly, 
as may be noticed among other pages, in No. 21, the note; 
" Bravo' s line;" and the divide marked in one of the 
sketches of the engineer indicates Station A-909 as the 
point of a branching off, where the divide of the basin 
of the Sixaola was abandoned in order to follow another 
and different one. 

3. The result is, therefore, that in the documents sub- 
mitted nothing is to be found but the note placed by the 
Commission upon the maps in order to designate that 
"divide," foreign to tlie subject, and among the reference 
papers there is no justification whatever for the starting 
point of that extraneous divide. 

4. On the contrary, an examination of the Plate No. Ill, 
which is annexed, shows that the ofTshoots which were 
traced from the Sixaola divide and which were abandoned 
at Stations 793, 823, 894, 1126, 11 16, 1150, 1162, 1200, 
1 191 and 1223, had just as good or a better right to be 
continued to their ending as the one that was followed 
from 1 2 12, in an easterly direction, and from that same 
vStation 121 2 there was just as good or a better reason 
for continuing the Stations 1237 to 1239, and that of 
1263, which was also abandoned at 1285 to proceed toward 
1342, and from thence traverse the swamp and reach 
Punta Mona, but still leaving from 1342, the line which is 
examined, to 1690 and from thence to 1625, at the mouth 
of Middle Creek upon the Atlantic Ocean. 

5. All these lines were abandoned in order to follow 
arbitrarily the offshoot which was begun from the Sixaola 
divide at vStation 909, and which only appears upon the 
Bravo Map as prolonged to Punta Mona, and coincides 



85 

exactly in distance and direction with the one that the 
Commission adopted from among all the others. 

6. In order to justify that line which was adopted, it 
would have been necessary to terminate those that were 
abandoned, and evidence it in that way. 

7. But it appears that the line which was left at 1342, 
for the purpose of running to Punta Mona, was continued 
to the coast and ended at Station 1625 at the mouth of 
Middle Creek, the result being that the line that was 
adopted was by this very fact divested of any authority 
and left resting alone upon the line drawn by Panama. 

8. It may very well be that the Commission should 
have had before it such Panamanian documents, in such 
case, however, being restricted in their use to their verifi- 
cation by its own investigations ; but to set aside its own 
examinations in order to substitute therefor such one- 
sided data can not be admissible. 

9. The minute details collected by the Commission of 
all that was observed in the field, as well as the ofiice 
calculations, for all the sketches and pencil figures were 
turned in, leaves no room for doubt that all the lines cited 
were abandoned for the purpose of following the one 
marked by Panama upon its maps. This assertion is 
confirmed by the last paragraph, in the form of a protest, 
which an engineer of the Commission, Mr. Ashmead, 
introduced at the close of the Commission's report: 

"I take exception to Appendix No. 3. in that in it 
is not included certain information from the Assistant 
Engineers which should be included therein."^ 

10. But all that has been alleged is further corroborated 
by the fundamental declaration of the Engineer, Mr. 

^Report of the Commission, p. 65. 



86 

Ashmead, in his Supplemental Report (p. 24), where he 
expresses the surprise that he felt to see placed upon the 
final maps the line across Swamp A — 

' ' * -■'■' * which was arbitrarily drawn on the final 
maps during their construction under the supervision 
of the Chairman of the Commission."^ 

1 1 . Such a declaration, laid before the other three 
Commissioners, so fundamental in its nature both in form 
and substance, if it had not been well founded, would 
have given rise to some specific justification on the part 
of the other three members. No document, however, 
appears that questions the allegation made by Mr. 
Ashmead, neither does there appear to be any justification 
for tracing the arbitrary and hypothetical line, nor for 
drawing the line from the place this one begins at, l^ut it 
is just a copy of the line laid down by Panama. 

12. Now it can be stated that it was this very reason 
and none other that led to the tracing of the "divide" 
to which reference was made in the answer to "Ques- 
tion IV" (Chapter IV of this paper), where it was 
shown by data furnished by the Commission itself that 
such line was traced with courses that were fundamentally 
uncertain and imaginary. 

13. For, as a matter of fact, nothing more is needed 
than to lay the tracing of the line by Sefior Bravo, drawn 
to the same scale as that of the map of the Commis- 
sion, over that map, in order to note the coincidence 
of the two lines throughout almost the whole of their 
extent. That is to say, a document which it is sought 
to have appear as an original, is really nothing more than 
a copy of a map furnished by one of the parties. 

14. The foregoing analysis, however, seems almost need- 

^ Report of the Commission, p. 53, par. 2. 



87 

less in the face of the manifest proof furnished by the 
Commission itself as to the fact that is alleged. In giving 
instructions to the Chief Engineer of Party A, it was 
distinctly said: 

"Eastward along the River Sixaola to its mouth, 

securing only such detailed information as shall be 
necessary to check the general direction and main bends 
of the river as shown in existing maps."^ 

But judging by the results it would seem as if the Com- 
mission must have said: "* * * and the bends of the 
divide as shown upon the map of Seiior Bravo."' 

The Commission stated that it had in its possession 
and it turned over the following maps:'' 

1. Map of the Atlantic Coast of Costa Rica, from 
Old Harbour to Almirante Bay. Scale, i : 40,000, in 
which are shown farms and railroads of the U. F. C. 

2. Ala pa Geologico de Talamanca (Geological Alap 
of Talamanca), by Wm. M. Gabb. 1873. 

3. Paper tracing: Bravo's Map of North Divide, 
December, 19 10. vScale, i : 40,000.^ 

4. McCrone's Compiled Map. 

5. Blueprint Map of Punta Mona, Carreta; by 
Matamoros. Scale, i : 5,000. 

6. Map of Costa Rica, prepared by the Inter- 
national Bureau of American Republics. 1903. 
vScale, I : 792,000. 

7. Tracing of Matamoros' Map, Plan of the Sixaola. 
Scale I : 40,000. 

8. Petermann's Map of Costa Rica. Scale, i : 
600,000. 

9. Map of Costa Rica, by H. Pittier. 1903. 

^Report of the Commission, p. 27, par. 2. 

^See Item 3 of the appended list. 

^Contents of Box No. 104. 

^Tlie Commission here creates this title for Bravo's Map and 
thereby admits it to be of the North Divide, whereas the map 
shows only a line marked thus (translation): "Cordillera boun- 
dary from Punta Mona or Punta Carreta." 



88 

There were some other bhieprints and reduced tracings, 
but among all these enumerated in this list, the Bravo 
Map alone, which was the one prepared by Panama, had 
the supposed divide delineated, under the following title 
(translation) : 

"Cordillera boundary from Punta Mona or Punta 
Carreta." 

And at the bottom of the map it stated (translation) : 

"Note. — The line indicates the summit 

of the Cordillera that runs from Los Andes to Punta 
de Monos or Punta Carreta. This ridge is the 
boundary between Panama and Costa Rica, accord- 
ing to the Award of M. Loubet." 

15. So that as to this point of vital importance, lying 
at the very foundation of the whole controversy in the 
establishment of which the Commission had no right 
whatever to look to the claims of either one of the parties, 
much less to rely upon the data presented by either of the 
two countries; as to this very vital point, we repeat the 
Commission was content and even ordered its Engineer 
to check only the data "as shown in existing maps:'' 
and as the map of Panama was the only one that showed 
the hypothetical divide, thereupon it was copied in order 
to comply with the directions of the Commission. 

16. Panama had in its possession the plans prepared by 
vSefior Bravo under the orders of that Republic, and yet 
notwithstanding that fact it specifically requested that 
the Commission should make a topographical examination 
of the whole of that region. It would seem, therefore, that 
Panama for the moment at least disregarded its own data 
and sought for new information, but in spite of this the 



89 

Commission did no more than to repeat upon its plans 
the data furnished by Panama upon the Bravo Map. 

17. It may be urged that the result that is given shows 
that the investigations of the Commission indicated a 
conformity with those that had been made by Panama. 
That would be quite so, provided the Commission had 
furnished records covering the line offered by it through- 
out its whole extent, but we have proved that no such 
records exist, and gone even so far as to show by the 
Commission's own report (p. 27) that it provided, to 
that Party particularly, to check the existing maps. 

18. So, while it was discussed in the proceedings of the 
Commission, whether or not it was best to put into the 
hands of the Engineers of the different parties the ques- 
tions proposed by the two countries, it was also discussed 
whether or not Engineers of the two countries should 
accompany the Commission; and as to the first point it 
was decided to deliver the questions proposed without 
any indication of their origin to the Engineers in the field ; 
and as to the second, only to permit visits by the engineers 
of the two countries to the surveying camp ; but why was 
it not also discussed whether or not the maps of the 
interested parties should be delivered to the field engineers ? 
It is clear such a c^uestion would have received an absolute 
negative, in order to secure a more impartial judgment 
by the Commission, and yet while that point was not 
even mentioned, those maps not only were in the hands 
of the Commission but also and continuously in the hands 
of the field 'engineers, so as to reduce their work merely 
to the checking up of lines previously drawn and one- 
sided in the controversy. 



90 

19- The clearest evidence that the Panama map was 
in the hands of the Engineer, Mr. Weakland, who was 
at the head of Party A, is found in the correspondence 
of that engineer, under dates of March lo and April 15. 
indicating that the dotted line,^ having no designation 
whatever, ought to be filled out with the words "Bravo's 
Line," and "Bravo's Map," in conformity with what is 
shown in the original correspondence of that engineer. 

In those letters are to be found the phrases that com- 
plete the mutilated paragraphs alluded to. It is not for 
us to pass judgment upon the motives that led the Com- 
mission to eliminate those words from the text, nor the 
resultant consequences if they had been included. 

20. The foregoing arguments have compelled us to once 
more look at the various sections distinctly designated 
by the Commission as "arbitrary," "uncertain" and 
"approximate," and referred to in paragraph 5 of Chapter 
IV, in the answer to Question IV. 

21. In order to follow the sequence in which those 
sections were given in the Chapter mentioned, let us 
begin with — 

I. The Imaginary Course. - 

This begins at Punta Mona, crosses vSwamp A and 
ascending the rise reaches the arbitrary point 9° 36' 40" 
north latitude and 82° 39' 00" longitude west of Green- 
wich, at an elevation of 90 meters; whence it proceeds, 
also arbitrarily, to Station A- 1239, a point situated 
at a height of 193 meters. 



^See Appendix, No. 3, pp. i and 2. 

■■^Report of the Commission, p. 55 : " * * * if such permanent 
divide exists * * *. " 



91 

2 2 . This course is not a divide of the valley or of the basin 
of the Sixaola, and even if it were divested of its arbitrary 
and hypothetical character, given to it by the Commission, 
it could have no relation to the matter now being dis- 
cussed, because it is a divide that separates the waters 
of a basin foreign to that of the vSixaola, as it was 
expressed by the Commission itself,^ and as appears by 
looking at the maps upon which it is marked by two con- 
tinuous black parallel and afterwards broken lines. 

II. Approximate Course." 

23. The Commission avers that this line "* * * from 
the coast of a point in latitude 9° 33 '.9 and longitude 
82° 39'. 3 '" * *," — quoting its very words in its report 
(p. 53) — is a part of the divide of the watershed of the 
Sixaola and is the terminal thereof upon the coast.'* 

24. It recognizes, then, that this black broken line is 
a portion of tJic divide that ends at the coast, but not at 
Punta Mona, for its own allegation, as we saw by the 
previous paragraph, was that the divide that ran to Punta 
Mona was not the divide of the vS^xaola watershed. 

Beside, with the purpose of justifying the fact that the 
examination of this portion of the divide of the Sixaola 
was only an approximate one, it made its own the language 
used by the Engineer of Party A, who said : 

"Please note that the Gadokan Creek was not run 
out entirely to its mouth. Water was very high at 
the time this survey was made and this creek empties 
into a lagoon before entering the sea, so it was 
impracticable to follow it the entire distance. How- 



^Report of the Commission, p. 55, par. 2. 
-Report of the Commission, pp. 53, 54. 
^Report of the Commission; bottom of p. 53. 



9^ 

ever, I walked over the ground between the Creek 
(Gadokan) and the Sixaola and satisfied myseh' that 
there is no connection between them.' 

25. In accordance with what the Geologist laid down,- 
if we take the average of careful observations covering a 
period of six consecutive years, from 1906 to 191 1, it 
would appear that the amount of rainfall in that section 
(certainly one of the nearest to the meteorological obser- 
vation station) toward the end of June, corresponded to the 
general average for the months of June and Julv, or say 
11.42 inches, and this figure is very close to the highest 
monthly average for the six years taken. 

26. The Commission, therefore, had in its possession 
arguments that could not be gainsaid for not putting in 
doubt the real existence of that divide and showing that 
there was no basis for the hypothesis that it was at times 
submerged, for the surveys w^ere carried out in the end 
of June, and that was the time of high water in that 
locahty; and so if, under those conditions, the Engineer 
certified that no connection existed between the course 
of the Gadokan and that of the Sixaola, what reason was 
there for asserting that in times of flood the courses of the 
two streams were confused? 

27. The eloquence of these numeric facts destroys the 
hypothesis and proves: 

A. 

28. That the real divide does exist, marked by the 
Commission upon its plans, from the coast to the jioint 
'•■^^ 9° 33' 9" ^^^^ ^-° 39' 3"- Its starting point at the 
coast was situated at 9° 35' north latitude and 82° 34' 38" 



'See end of letter dated June 22, 191 2; Appendix No. 3, p. 3, 
-Report of Geologist, p. 14. 



93 

west longitude from Greenwich, according to Map No. i, 
Sheet No. i, by the Commission. 

B. 

That this portion of the divide, indicated upon the 
maps as a broken line was traversed by the Engineer 
of Party A, who certified that at no point did the waters 
of the Sixaola have any connection with those of the 
Gadokan. 



That this examination was made during the period of 
high water in the streams and, therefore, is known approxi- 
mately only.^ 

D. 

That in view of the evidence furnished by the Geologist 
in his report (p. 14), the fact is well settled that such 
investigation was carried out when there was a maximum 
precipitation in that locality, and consequently there is no 
reason to suppose that this divide was inundated at other 
times. - 

III. Uncertain Course.'' 

29. This uncertain course of the divide, according to 
the very words of the Commission itself, " * * * between 
D-629 and A-43 * * *,"^ was laid down by means of 

^Report of the Commission, p. 54; ist and 2d lines from the 
top. 

^See analytical demonstration of this fact, Chap. VI, par. 10, 
^Report of the Commission, pp. 54 and 57. 
^Report of the Commission, p. 41. 
1559—8 



94 

"* * * distances determined by the time that elapsed in 
traversing them, directions by the compass and eleva- 
tions indicated by aneroid barometers;" and although 
the report excepts from these conditions " * * * a short 
gap of 19 kilometers * * *" (p. 54), according to what 
the same report states at another place (p. 41), that 
"short gap" starts at the peak A-43, which was fixed, 
not by topographical means (a traverse hne adopted), 
but by trigonometrical processes "* * * by intersections 
from Party A's traverse line, a distance of about 18 
kilometers."^ 

30. By looking at "Party A's traverse line" any one 
can see that a worse disposition could hardly have been 
made in seeking to find by means of an intersection the 
location of peak 43-A. It is well known that if locations 
obtained by the use of the intersection method are to be 
relied upon there must be, in the first place an extended 
base, accurately measured, and in the second place, the 
extremes of the base joined to the point that is to be 
fixed should form as nearly as possible an equilateral 
triangle. 

31. In the present case none of these conditions 
were satisfied, for "traverse line A," from where it 
would have been possible to make the most extended 
observation of the peak 43-A, did not measure more 
than 5,700 meters between the Stations A-2400 and 
A-2511. The maximum base, therefore, was very short 
and the maximum angle of the apex which the observer 
could have obtained did not reach 17°; that is to say, 
half of that required by trigonometry for a proper opera- 
tion. Assuming the base of 5,700 meters to be correct, 
the error in the short distance from A-251 1 to A-43 would 

^Report of the Commission, p. 41. 



95 

reach, in case there was a variation of a minute more or 
less, some 554 meters, as laid down by the Commission.^ 
If this was the only ground for uncertainty, the Commis- 
sion admits it; but it further appears that from A-43, 
left thus uncertainly located, it continued as we have 
indicated over a length of 19 kilometers as far as vStation 
D-629, and taking into consideration the difficulties met 
with in traversing those mountains, it is very evident that 
the course embraced between A-43 and D-629 was in 
every way uncertain." 

IV. Arbitrary Course. 

32. We have seen (paragraph 3 of Answer to Question I, 
Chapter IV) that the starting point of the divide at 
Chirripo Grande was chosen arbitrarily; and likewise 
arbirtary was the selection of the point at Buena Vista 
for the divide to turn off in a different direction from that 
indicated by the topography of the locality. For such 
deviation there was no other reason than the one pointed 
out in the beginning of this argument for the hypothetical 
and arbitrary course, as the Commission itself so desig- 
nates it. 

33. The Panama map agrees with the original of the 
Commission in the location, distance and direction of the 
course marked by the two continuous and parallel lines, 
from the point of departure to Station A- 1239, where it 
follows the hypothetical course of the Commission. 

^Report of the Commission, end of p. 54. 

-To be sure of this irregularity, let us look at the original paper 
No. A-25, and the distance for the determination of the location 
of the peak A-43 is found to have only been 1065.9 meters. 
See Triang. Sheet No. 22. Consequently the approximation 
is still less than the base of 5,700 meters would give. 



96 

34- In proof of all that has been stated, reference is 
made to the accompanying map, Plate No. V, submitted by 
the Republic of Panama, signed by its Engineer, Don Abel 
Bravo, and to the tracings, Plate No. IV,thatmake appar- 
ent the similarity of the line of the Commission and of the 
Panama map at the point 9° 36' 00" north latitude, and 
82° 40' 46" longitude west of Greenwich, which led to this 
examination. 

35. Aside from all this, the reason is not evident for 
the marked and decided effort shown by the Commission 
in all the minor details of its examinations and reports 
to establish the divide of the vSixaola basin upon the north 
side, to the extreme that one of the engineers in the field 
referred to it as the "divide desired,"^ That line, without 
any doubt, did constitute one of the elements in the 
problem that was submitted, but it was no more than a 
simple datum and not as the object. 

36. The French Arbitral Award, which the Commission 
had in its possession, had nothing whatever to say about 
any such divide; but it referred to the line that closed 
upon the north the valley of the vSixaola, not the line that 
closed upon the north the basin of the Sixaola. 

37. The Engineers of the Commission defined the valley 
of the Sixaola very well when they marked it as restricted 
by high rocks and confined to the course of the river. 

38. They should have adhered to this view at all times 
and when they had once found the divide, continued to 
use it as a means for determining the line of the valley, 
that being the object of their mission. 

^F. Smith, Appendix No. 3, p. 11. 



97 

39- In no part of the report or upon the maps was that 
line treated, but only the divide, although they are entirely 
distinct. 

40. That is the reason why the line, to which we refer, 
has been traced, supported by the reports and maps of 
the Commission. 



CHAPTER VI. 



BASES OF SOME POINTS DISCUSSED IN THE PRE- 
CEDING CHAPTER. 

1. The foregoing examination seems to pass rather 
hastily over the points that were brought out therein, 
although the maps and reports of the Commission — in 
the form they have been submitted — afford no room for 
doubt as to the veracity of our statements. It is evident 
that such maps were prepared, not only with the data 
obtained upon the ground, but also by the use of existing 
maps, like that of the coast between the mouth of the 
Sixaola and Punta Mona and others that will be cited. 

The present chapter has been written to substantiate 
still further the various parts of that examination. 

2. This seems to be the proper place to show that the 
plans of the Commission were not justified by themselves, 
nor by the report that accompanied them. Both of the 
parties to the controversy had in their possession maps 
of this region, and among others, the map of Wm. Gabb 
(i 877-1 878), prepared upon the order and for the account 
of the Government of Costa Rica, upon which all the 
others that have been made since were based. But what 
was needed was not maps, according to the literal text 
of the petitions of the two parties, but it was plans with 
the proper accompanying documents to show the lines 
which were run and examined ("Traverse Lines"), as 
provided in Paragraph (c), page 13 of the Report of the 
Commission, and as is customary in all topographical 
maps. 

3. If these conditions were to have been put into prac- 
tice it is evident that the phrase to be found in the 

(98) 



99 

Commission's Report (p. 27): "A continuous survey from 
Cuabre to Punta Mona was completed on April 26," was 
not correct, because from the very moment that the por- 
tion of the coast lying between the mouth of the Sixaola 
and Punta Mona was taken from the " Hydrographic 
Office Chart, No. 94 j,"^ and used in order to connect the 
Punta Mona section with the territory separated from it 
by Swamp A, there was no "continuous survey" made. 

4. What the Commission termed a "continuous survey 
from Cuabre to Punta Mona," was the one it showed upon 
its maps; that is to say, the course marked by a black 
cursive line, which continued, marked by two black par- 
allel and continuous lines, and the one that at the end 
of the latter proceeded by two parallel broken lines 
and terminated at Punta Mona. Our argument goes no 
further than to prove that such line was not a "contin- 
uous" one. 

5. Without prejudice to the analysis that follows for 
the purpose of establishing the foregoing proposition, it 
will be stated that from Station A- 1625 (Mouth of Middle 
Creek), Party A ran a "traverse line" which localized 
the course of 1,300 meters as far as Station A- 1686, which 
does not appear to be drawn upon the map, but which 
began at a point situated at 82° 37' 38" west longitude 
and 9° 36' 32" north latitude. This belongs in Map No, 
2, Sheet No. i, exactly where a black dot is placed over 
the letter "r" in the word "Trail," west of a bend in 
Middle Creek; and from this point A- 1686 the survey con- 
tinued along the ramification whence the ' ' arbitrary and 
hypothetical divide ' ' was taken off. 

6. Let us look at the fundamental facts. 

Party A followed the course that started at Station 
A- 1 239, in an easterly direction, some degrees southerly, 

^See map No. 2, sheet No. i. 



100 



and which continued along the summits indicated by the 
natural topography of the ground and the elevations of 
which are recorded as follows: 

Station A-1239, notebook No. 3-A. 

Station A-1283 to A-1263, pp. 145 to 151. 
and for the continuation of the line : 

No. 5-A, from A-1621 to A- 1644, pp. 43 to 51. 

No. 4-A, from A-1645 to A-1675, pp. 147 to 157. 

No. 6-A, from A-1675 to A-1679, p. 21. 

No. 6-A, from A-1679 to A-1719, pp. 23 to 35. 

There was included in these, the Station A- 1626, close 
to the mouth of Middle Creek where it enters the ocean. 
At the foot of page 46, in notebook 5-A, is found Station 
A- 1 625, and a shot to the mouth of the river, with this 
note: "Mouth of Mijddle Creek." The elevation of A- 1626 
is 4.4 meters, as appears upon the same page. 

On page 47 we find — 

Station A- 1626 with an elevation of 4.4 meters. 
" A-1627 " " " "3.5 " 

" A-1628 " " " " 3.5 

" A-1629 " " " "5.8 

On page 53 of the same notebook, 5-A, we find — 

Station A-1679 with an elevation of 5.4 meters. 



A-I680 " 


" " 


"6.4 


" A-i68i " 


( ( (1 


"6.5 


" A-1682 " 


" " 


" 51 


" A-1683 " 


( ( ( ( 


"5-8 


" A-1684 " 


( ( 11 


" 6.9 


" A-1685 " 


If (1 


" 6.7 


A-1686 " 


II II 


" 7-3 



7. The calculations for these stations are complete as 
to distances and directions, as may be seen by "Pamphlet 
A-24," of the calculations of the work of Party A. 

The lowest point on this line is Station A-1627, at 3.5 
meters above the sea level. 



101 

8. Without the need of recourse to the data offered 
by the Commission, it is easy to demonstrate that the point 
A- 1 62 7, with an elevation of 3.5 meters, never was nor will 
it be inundated by the floods in the rivers. 

9. For if that were to happen the whole coast, which 
has existed from time immemorial between Punta Mona 
and the vSixaola, would disappear and be flooded under the 
waters of the ocean and the rivers to a depth of more than 
3.5 meters, which is equivalent to twelve and a half feet. 

10. Now, taking the data submitted by the Geologist 
of the Commission in his report (p. 14), the foregoing 
results mathematically : 

The maximum quantity of annual rainfall, observed 
over a period of six years, amounted to 149 inches, in 1910 ; 

The, run-off, estimated from direct observations upon 
the ground, reached 0.3 of the amount of the rainfall, and 
consequently taking the period of heaviest rains, that run- 
off would amount to 44.7 inches or i.ii meters; so that 
the station A-1627 would still be left 2.39 meters above the 
surface of the water. 

But to assume that this height of 44.7 inches would be 
reached, we would have to suppose something that is of 
course absurd, that a dam or barrier could be raised to that 
level of 44.7 inches and that no run-off or discharge could 
take place until that level had been reached. No; that 
quantity of rainwater is distributed in the following 
manner: 

(i) Absorption by the soil; enormous in the present 
case, inasmuch as the valley is very extensive and flat, and 
the slopes of the basin are steep. 

(2) Evaporation, which is considerable, stated by the 



102 

Geologist himself in his report (p. 12), where it is said that 
the mean temperature at the meteorological station close 

to Changuinola is '^ ^ = 78° F., and the temperature of 

the high regions of the basin (p. 13), is ^ = 54-5° F"-; 

while the mean temperature at a height intermediate 
between the extreme points — the coast and Chirripo 

Grande — say at an elevation of --^ = 1925 meters, 

2 

will be ^^ + ^^-^ = 66.2° F. 
2 

(3) Absorption by vegetable life, for its growth and 
development, as well as the consumption by animals. 

In an important article by Mr. Joel D. Justin, Associate 
Member of the American vSociety of Civil Engineers, pub- 
lished in Vol. XXXIX, No. 6 of the "Proceedings of the 
American Society of Civil Engineers," August, 191 3, p. 
1 22 1, we note that the author very properly considers the 
two items, "slope" and "mean annual temperature," as 
the principal factors in determining the relation to be 
established between the amount of rainfall and the run-off. 

If we determine the evaporation, by means of the 
general expression found on page 148 of Mr. Daniel W. 
Mead's book on "Water Power Engineering," 

E=(i5.5o-|-o.i6R) (0.05T-1.48) 
in which 

E = The annual evaporation (including all losses on 
drainage area except from run-off), 



103 



R = The annual rainfall, and 

T = Mean annual temperature, 

we find that the evaporation is as high as 71.99 inches. 

On page 166 of the same book Mr. Mead establishes the 
relation between monthly depths of rainfall and run-off, 
by means of certain diagrams. Entering these curves 
with the data submitted by the Geologist on page 14 of his 
report, we obtain the following results : 



Month. Rain 

January 13 

February 10 

March 5 

April 12 

May 10 

June 7 

July 14 

August 8 

September 7 

October 5 

November 8 

December 18 



-fall. 

36. 
46. 
62. 
04. 

32. 

79- 
06. , 
10. . 

77- • 
37- • 
29.. 

68. . 



Depth of run-off. 

II-5 

2.5 

50 

50 

50 

30 

4-5 

30 

40 

30 

40 

8.0 



Making a total run-off of 58.5 inches, which added to 
the 71.99 for evaporation makes a grand total -of 130.49 
inches. 

But, if it were possible to have any doubt as to the 
foregoing mathematical calculation, let us even go so far 
as to concede, what would be the height of absurdity, that 



104 



there was no run-off and that there was neither absorption 
or evaporation, that vegetables and animals did not con- 
sume a single drop of water and that a dike 149 inches 
high was constructed at the lowest station on the line, the 
elevation of which we saw was 3.5 meters. Such a dike 
would hold back the entire amount of the rain that fell 
to the end of the year, but even so, that station lying at 
an elevation of 3.5 meters would only be submerged 9 
inches, while the next one, 220 meters distant from it, 
having an elevation of 4.4 meters would still be left 27 
inches above the water level. 

How, then, is it possible to understand that the Com- 
mission, having this data in its possession, with the proofs 
that the line that was run, was not and never could be 
inundated, could have disregarded them for the purpose 
of substituting therefor an assertion that seriously affects 
the interests of Costa Rica, by saying that the whole 
region was inundated when floods prevailed in the rivers? 

All the other points upon that localized line were higher 
still, and so, of course, they were beyond even the very 
highest floods. 

II. It is not possible, therefore, in the face of the data 
referred to and with a knowledge of these facts, to under- 
stand how the Commission could have neglected to apply 
them, and have substituted therefor an unjustifiable 
hypothesis. 

i2.Intheaccompanyingmap, PlateNo. Ill, are embraced 
the data that appear recorded only in the field notebooks ; it 
may be seen that the extreme eastern section of Punta 
Mona is joined to the one that is left toward the south 
by the line that starts from the mouth of Middle Creek, 
and following its course upward it connects with the line 
that terminates at Station A- 1686. 



105 



EQUATION OF LINES. 

13. Another of the points that need explanation is the 
one referred to in paragraph 6, Chapter V, of this paper. 

It is common among engineers, while at work in the 
field, if in running new lines, stakes or marks of abandoned 
lines are met with, to note the equivalence between the 
abandoned stake and the new one that is set. The pur- 
pose of this is to check the levels and to make use of the 
abandoned work for the better understanding of the 
topography of the region that is being studied. This is 
known as " Equation of Lines," and it is not rare to find 
A-i62 = B-62. 

14. But in the present case the Commission not only 
repeatedly checked the line that the Engineer of Panama, 
Doctor Don Abel Bravo, marked and laid down, without 
any justification appearing therefor in any notebook, but 
it abandoned the height that ran forming the divide of 
Middle Creek and which ended at Station A- 1686 and 
branched oif at some capriciously selected point as the 
Panamanian Map of Seiior Bravo also branched off to 
proceed to Punta Mona. 

15. That the Commission followed the Panama line, as 
stated in the foregoing paragraph, is shown quite clearly 
by the following data taken literally from the field note- 
books of Party A. 

Notebook No. A. 

Page 23. Station A- 15. At head of Valley. 

" 25. " A- 1 8 is old stake, supposed to be 

Bravo's line. 

" 71. " A-160 = Bravo's 60. 

" 71. " A-161 - " 61. 

" 71. " A-162 = " 62. 



106 



Page 



Page 56 





Station A- 163 = Bravo's 63. 




" A-164 = " 64. 




• " A-165 = " 65. 


72. 


" A-166 = " 66. 


97- 


" A-221 = " Buena Vista. 


97- 


" A-218 = is near Bravo's 124. 


121. 


" A-359 = Bravo's 200. 




NOTEBOOK 2-A. 


.S6. 


Station A-26S = Bravo's 160. 



100. 

14. 
108. 



A-479 = " 239. 

A-68 = vShot to Bravo's Line. 

A-499 = Bravo's Camp. 



Notebook No. 3-A. 

Page 9. Station A-303 = Bravo's 294. Panama map 

287. 
End of branch. 
End of branch A-620. 
Branch Hne. 
Branch line. 

Bravo's 387. Panama map. 
End of branch. 
End of branch. 
Bravo's 369. Panama map 
End of branch. 



Bravo's 377. Panama map. 

End of branch. 

Branch Hne. 

388 Bravo. 

End of branch. 
Station A-851 = Bravo's No. 392. 
" " " " A-853 - " " 394- 

141 and and 142. vStation A-2136 = Bravo's 483. 



5 


" A-587 


17 


" A-625 


15 


" A-618 


15 


A-620 


II 


A- 609 


21 


" A-742 


23 


" A-734 


29 


" A-766 


31 


" A-773 


37 


" A-790 


39 


" A-795 


41 


" A-779 


47 


" A-817 


47 


" A-806 


49 


" A-828 


57 


" A-848 


59 


and 60. Station 



107 

Notebook No. 4-A. 

Page I. Station A-630 = Bravo's 308. 

" 69. " A-1178 = " 452. 
" 81. " A-1283 = " 511. 
"119. " A- 1 43 1 = " 600. 

16. Placing one upon the other the Panamanian 
tracing made by Doctor Bravo, and that of the Commission 
submitted by it, the proof of what is being discussed 
becomes evident, as may be seen by a glance at the 
tracing referred to in Chapter V. 

17. To the present paper two maps are appended, pre- 
pared to illustrate what has been stated. 

The first one, Plate No. Ill, contains solely and exclu- 
sively the data that the Commission obtained at Punta 
Mona and in its vicinity across Swamp A, as shown by 
and as appears from the records in the field notebooks of 
the respective camps. That map is entitled: 

''Map showing the only data taken by the Commission 
of Engineers at Punta Mona and its surroundings ^ 

18. From this it may be seen that the only traverse 
line, which was run from the mouth of Middle Creek 
towards the south, to connect with Station A- 1686, was 
eliminated from the maps of the Commission ; 

19. That line, as it has been demonstrated in paragraph 
10, showed a crest that was constant and never submerged, 
and which terminated upon the coast near the mouth of 
Middle Clerk. 

20. Upon the second map, Plate No. VI, which was 
copied from the first one above mentioned, the same data 
are represented, confined to what is shown by the records 
of the Commission, and the course described, which the 



108 



Commission omitted on the final maps, and for which it sub- 
stituted the drawing of a new hne, indicated by two parallel 
Hues terminating at Punta ]Mona. And it was in this 
form, disguised by a fanciful delimitation, that the Com- 
mission presented what it called a "Continuous survey 
from Cuabre to Punta Mona." 

21. It should be noted that upon neither of these maps 
are any level curves or contour lines dehneated, since 
there does not appear in the field books any justifica- 
tion therefor. It is usual for an engineer in charge of a 
topographical survey, while running a traverse line, to 
note in his field book at the different stations of the 
instrument, the cross sections upon the main line that is 
being laid down, using a hand-level or cHnometer that 
mil indicate the gradient to one side or the other of the 
point in question, and with this annotation it is possible 
to delineate the contours showing the general topography 
in the immediate \dcinity of the Hne that is being run. 

22. In the present case the Commission did not deem 
it necessary to take these data, which could have been set 
down in the note books on the field, and apparently was 
satisfied to draw "contour fines" deduced solely from the 
levels taken at two neighboring points, but such a practice 
has no scientific value in this kind of work. This problem 
of contour lines is too important in the consideration 
of this controversy for us to refrain from strengthening 
the reasons that constrain us to refuse to accept them as 
correct, all the more when there is material therefor. 

23. In the Report of the Commission (p. 4), the follow- 
ing language is used : 

"The contours are controlled in position by the 
general knowledge of the country gained by members 
of the Commission survey parties. In some portions 



109 

of these areas sketches made in the field, but icitJiont 
instrumental control in these parts form a portion 
of the basis of the map." 

24. The foregoing statement, while it strengthens the 
present allegation, further declares at the same time, that 
instruments were not employed for the determination of 
these lines but they were traced by the eye, and not even 
by those chiefly responsbile for the survey, but by their 
employees. 

2^. In a matter of a legal character, like the preseul one, 
the instrumental data may be conceded and we may even 
go to the extent of admitting the facts personally gained 
by employees of the Commission, as being correct, but 
not the data or facts for the verification of which mathe- 
mathical operations' are indispensably necessary. 

26. If the mere .sight would serve to determine observa- 
tions, as it seems to have served the Commission, in the 
same way it used the time elapsed to run over a course in 
order to ascertain its length, surveying chains and levels 
would become quite superfluous. It is, of course, recog- 
nized that these instruments are susceptible to error, but 
means have been found to diminish or render them of little 
consequence. 

27. So while it may be conceded thai I he rugged bluffs 
along the heights that limit the course of the Sixaola upon 
the north do really exist, having [been personally observed 
by employees of the Commission and recognized by the 
Commission itself, still it cannot be accepted in the same 
way the contour lines, delineated according to the 
caprice or the fancy of employees in the interior of the 
territory, and where the difficulties met with, in so irregular 
a configuration as that to be found there, require the aid 
of instruments for their solution. 



no 



28. Citing but one case only as showing the abuse to 
which the method adopted by the Commission as regards 
the contour lines has given rise, it is sufficient to refer 
to what happened in the case of the traverse line run to 
Middle Creek, upon the coast — the levels for which were 
determined by instruments— and for some unknown 
reason this hue was omitted in the considerations of the 
Commission. 

29. The construction of the map showing the substitu- 
tion of the line that was drawn upon the maps of the 
Commission as running to Punta Mona for the hne 
that was run to the mouth of Middle Creek, will be 
justified by the appending full notes relating to the 
survey of this last line, as they are found in the field 
books cited in paragraph 7 of this chapter, and the 
calculations of which were embraced in Pamphlet No. 
24, submitted by the Commission, and are here repro- 
duced : 



3 A 



a^c. 


Sla. 


Azimuth. 


Di 


s7. 


Elevation. 


33 


776 


311-44-00 


69 





1 06 . 9 


33 


777 


246-57-00 


55 


7 


lOI . I 


39 


796 


2 1 8-48-00 


39 


6 


94.6 


41 


797 


273-48-00 


55 


2 


81. 1 


41 


798 


266-36-00 


46 


2 


79-4 


41 


799 


282-15-00 


74 


9 


83.6 Bravo 377 


41 


800 


301-40-00 


79 


2 


92.8 


41 


801 


3 1 8-34-00 


52 


5 


94 


41 


802 


301-02-30 


58 


7 


84.9 


43 


803 


333-36-00 


64 


9 


77-7 


43 


804 


337-35^00 


56 


3 


89-5 


43 


805 


260-03-00 


68 


2 


91.7 


49 


824 


274-56-00 


46 


3 


88.3 


49 


825 


326-49-00 


67 





87.4 


49 


826 


349-34-00 


31 


7 


90 . 3 


49 


827 


324-22-00 


39 





10^ .3 Bravo ^^88 


59 


849 


254-54-00 


52 





87.2 


59 


851 


287-35-00 


58 


4 


97 . 2 Bravo 392 



. Ill 



Book. Fare. 


Sta. 


Azimii'.h. 


Dis!. 


E'cihUloii. 




3 A 59 


852 


270-02-00 


363 


98.2 




59 


853 


284-11-00 


51-3 


93.9 Bravo 


394 


59 


854 


300-55-00 


65.0 


95-8 




6i 


855 


296-26-30 


57-9 


99-4 




6i 


856 


249-19-30 


37-8 


89.9 . 




4 A 23 


893 


176-07-00 


91.7 


63-7 




23 


894 


182-37-00 


46.6 


57-3 




23 


895 


254-53-00 


54-5 


94-9 




23 


896 


278-06-00 


62.8 


94-7 




23 


897 


310-30-00 


45 • 3 


96. I 




25 


898 


325-37-00 


27.9 


98.5 




25 


899 


297-05-00 


54-7 


98. I 




25 


900 


333-27-00 


20.0 


100.8 




25 


901 


338-44-00 


40.2 


100.8 




25 


902 


285-17-00 


38.3 


91 . 2 




3 A 115 


1092 


234-16-00 


34-5 


79-7 




115 


1093 


211-30-00 


57-9 


74.8 




115 


1094 


234-05-00 


34-5 


74-8 




115 


1095 


184-57-00 


82.6 


73-7 




"5 


1096 


190-02-30 


37-2 


72.1 




115 


1097 


196-21-00 


60.7 


68. 7 




117 


1098 


206-00-00 


57 I 


66. s 




117 


1099 


179-10-00 


4^-5 


66.3 




117 


1100 


234-42-30 


49-9 


635 




117 


IIOI 


209-09-00 


530 


62.6 




117 


1 102 


229-15-00 


31-3 


62.3 




117 


1 103 


193-52-00 


49-8 


57-5 




119 


1 104 


233-48-00 


61.1 


61 .0 




119 


1 105 


166-38-00 


.27.5 


60.0 




4 A 53 


1127 


152-12-00 


58.3 


52 -6 




53 


1128 


183-01-00 


40.6 


49.9 




53 


1 129 


187-34-00 


56.4 


49.0 




53 


1 130 


2 1 8-09-00 


65.1 


56.7 




53 


1-131 


161-59-00 


68.0 


53-4 




53 


1 132 


159-06-00 


29.0 


55-9 




55 


1 133 


138-42-00 


36.9 


59-6 




55 


1134 


86-35-30 


36.9 


S6.6 




55 


1 135 


55-51-00 


41.2 


46.1 




55 


1136 


62-30-00 


58.9 


48.5 




55 


1 137 


1 50-04-00 


63-3 


47.0 




55 


1138 


186-55-00 


44.8 


51-4 




57 


1139 


206-49-30 


33-5 


46.4 





1J2 



Book. 


PiU^C. 


S7(/. 


A'-imiilh. 


Dis 


/. 


lUcu 


tion 


4A 


57 ^ 


140 


171-56-00 


67 


3 


47.0 




57 I 


141 


228-25-00 


4^ 


4 


43 


i 




65 I 


163 


240-38-00 


5« 


5 


42 







(>5 I 


164 


229-25-30 


45 


S 


43 


I 




65 1 


i6,S 


253-12-00 


3^> 


9 


4« 


1 




65 1 


166 


254-48-00 


39 


3 


49 


4 




f^5 J 


167 


268-49-00 


27 


8 


43 


9 




(35 1 


1 68 


2 1 4-4 1 -00 


39 


3 


53 


3 




67 I 


169 


156-46-00 


71 


3 


51 


I 




('7 


170 


209-49-30 


42 


() 


54 


4 




<>7 


171 


270-45-00 


68 


4 


55 


7 




"7 


172 


256-16-00 


27 


+ 


58 


9 




^>7 


173 


162-39-00 


42 


4 


54 







f^7 


174 


17S-53-00 


43 


7 


59 







69 


175 


221-21-30 


44 


7 


54 


5 




69 


176 


176-01-00 


38 


6 


54 


3 




69 


177 


193-10-00 


50 


6 


57 


8 




69 1 


180 


179-12-00 


47 


6 


73 


4 




69 1 


181 


281-39-00 


16 


6 


71 


6 


3 A 


129 1 


201 


148-49-00 


25 


5 


77 


4 




129 ] 


202 


73-04-00 


23 


1 


70 







129 


203 


138-58-00 


46 





67 


7 




131 


204 


181-34-00 


57 


^ 


68 


6 




131 ] 


205 


204-59-00 


32 


4 


70 


5 




131 


[206 


181-54-00 


52 


6 


67 


9 




131 


207 


190-50-00 


43 


8 


75 


4 




131 


[208 


160-16-00 


3^^ 


S 


87 


9 




131 


209 


202-08-00 


61 


4 


102 


5 




^2>3 


t2IO 


226-38-00 


25 


9 


105 


8 




133 


21 I 


189-42-00 


4S 


5 


119 


5 




137 


[224 


278-35-00 


r, 2 


7 


124 


9 




137 


[225 


255-13-00 


60 


9 


129 


6 




137 


[226 


293-20-co 


40 





129 


2 




137 


[227 


294-26-00 


18 


5 


134 


Q 




137 


[228 


254-27-00 


25 


6 


131 


8 




139 


[229 


281-31-00 


41 


5 


137 


4 




139 


[230 


264-48-00 


32 


I 


134 


S 




139 


[231 


271-31-00 


43 


3 


127 


8 




139 


[232 


243-30-00 


32 


9 


123 


2 




139 


[233 


227-03-00 


56 


9 


146 


2 




139 


1234 


228-53-00 


34 


3 


145 


7 




141 ] 


t235 


218-42-00 


20 


2 


144 


.4 



113 



"iook. 


Page. 


St a. 


AzimutJi. 


Disl. Elevation. 


3 A 


141 ] 


236 


224-39-00 


49 • 6 


164. 1 Bravo 483 




141 


1237 


208-03-00 


27 


4 


180.7 




141 


[238 


260-12-00 


35 


3 


184.3 




145 


1239 


260-45-00 


19 


4 


192.7 




145 


[240 


306-15-00 


60 


7 


188.2 


4 A 


75 


[264 


299-22-00 


22 


.6 


189.2 




75 


[265 


325-02-00 


34 


7 


1 86. 4 




75 


[266 


331-18-00 


22 


4 


1 80 . 8 




75 


[267 


334-50-00 


^9 


8 


180.6 




75 


[268 


09-22-00 


24 


5 


1750 




75 


[269 


266-18-00 


38 


9 


176,7 




11 


[270 


252-38-00 


56 





[80.0 




11 


271 


290-30-00 


25 


2 


183.8 




.11 


272 


274-15-00 


21 





[80.5 




11 


t2 73 


280-31-00 


57 


2 


[78.7 




11 


274 


257-25-00 


40 


3 


178.5 




11 


275 


229-40-30 


22 


9 


187.5 




79 


276 


321-47-30 


22 


6 


191-7 




79 


277 


303-52-30 


57 


8 


86.1 




79 ] 


091 


331-24-30 


51 


I 


76.9 




79 3 


27S 


303-44-00 


70 


7 


76.5 




79 


279 


304-32-30 


56 


I 


73-1 




79 ] 


280 


284-01-00 


36 


9 ] 


78.8 




81 1 


281 


218-57-00 


31 


8 ] 


85.2 




81 ] 


282 


250-25-00 


57 


3 ' 


85.0 




81 ] 


28^ 


271-36-00 


53 


I ] 


94.0 Bravo 51 1 




81 ] 


284 


309-53-00 


79 


6 J 


88.9 




81 ] 


285 


323-35-00 


24 


I ] 


87.0 




81 ] 


286 


303-30-00 


77 


2 


66.2 




83 1 


287 


296-34-00 


59 


5 ^ 


66.3 




83 1 


2S8 


319-04-00 


56 


] 


77-7 




83 1 


289 


290-45-00 


67 


9 ] 


55-2 




83 1 


290 


298-06-00 


52 


I 


58.5 




83 1 


291 


293-05-00 


67 


2 


44.8 




83 1 


292 


280-09-00 


62 


6 ] 


66.7 




85 1 


293 


280-50-00 


41 


3 ' 


750 




85 1 


29-1 


313-05-00 


58 


5 ^ 


71-5 




87 1 


295 


271-14-00 


68 


I ] 


47.0 




87 ] 


296 


268-54-30 


44 


I 1 


66.9 




87 1 


297 


248-36-00 


26 


9 1 


83.8 




87 ^ 


298 


260-56-00 


34 


4 I 


79-3 




87 ^ 


299 


329-16-00 


48 


8 I 


51-4 



114 



Book. 
4 A 



Page. . 


^la. 


Azimuth. 


Dist. 


Elevation 


87 


[300 


317-10-00 


69.4 


131. 6 


89 


[301 


338-27-00 


40.4 


144.6 


89 


[302 


293-19-00 


36 • 4 


135-6 


89 


303 


269-30-00 


48. 1 


151-5 


89 


1304 


301-12-00 


19.8 


147.8 


89 


1305 


317-46-30 


58.1 


127.0 


89 


306 


312-26-00 


46.8 


126.8 


91 


307 


285-12-30 


43-3 


128.4 


91 


[30S 


2.80-40-00 


61 .9 


117.8 


91 


309 


281-24-00 


41.9 


110.4 


91 


310 


327-28-00 


23.1 


106.3 


9' 


311 


317-04-00 


27-3 


101.8 


91 


312 


278-15-30 


653 


95-1 


93 1 


3^i 


285-17-00 


63.5 


79.8 


93 


314 


249-22-00 


29. 1 


96.5 


93 


315 


262-33-00 


17.8 


100.9 


93 


[316 


263-38-00 


39-3 


102 .3 


93 1 


317 


291-25-00 


43 I 


1073 


93 1 


t3i8 


258-17-00 


61 .9 


1 12 .4 


95 


1319 


275-30-00 


38.2 


109.4 


95 


320 


296-21-00 


56.5 


92.9 


95 


[321 


256-29-00 


50.3 


99-1 


95 


[322 


272-32-00 


64.9 


86.4 


95 1 


323 


265-34-30 


65 ■ 9 


78.3 


95 


324 


293-59-00 


36 . 9 


70.1 


97 


1325 


263-01-00 


70.1 


84.0 


97 


1326 


272-19-00 


45.8 


62 .0 


97 


[327 


249-12-30 


65.1 


41.1 


97 


[328 


303-59-00 


53-2 


35-8 


97 1 


[329 


03-04-00 


54-3 


39-1 


97 


t330 


281-07-00 


47.1 


82.6 


97 


^331 


302-50-00 


108.9 


61.4 


99 


[332 


337-23-30 


44.0 


61 .9 


99 


1333 


313-00-00 


35-3 


67.1 


99 


t334 


271-51-30 


46. 1 


64.2 


99 


[335 


235-46-00 


39-8 


55-1 


99 


^336 


I 84-05-00 


61.8 


36.4 


99 


[337 


243-24-00 


44 


43-8 


lOI 


^338 


170-12-00 


68.7 


.53 • 5 


lOI ] 


'339 


247-50-00 


53-9 


46.7 


lOI ) 


340 


205-14-00 


50.5 


45-9 


lOI 


341 


140-41-00 


42.1 


49.0 



115 



Book. Page. 
4 A 



5 A 



lOI 
lOI 

103 

103 

103 

103 

103 

103 

105 

105 

105 

105 

105 

105 

107 

107 

107 

55 

55 

55 

55 

55 

55 

55 

55 

57 

57 

57 

57 

57 

57 

59 

59 

59 

59 

59 

59 

61 

61 

61 

61 

61 



Sta. 
1342 
1343 
1344 
1345 
1346 
1347 
1348 
1349 
1350 
1351 
1352 
1353 
1354 
1355 
1356 
1357 
1358 
1685 
1686 
1687 
1688 
1689 
1690 
1 69 1 
1692 
1693 
1694 

1695 
1696 
1697 
1698 
1699 
1700 
1701 
1702 

1703 
1704 

1705 
1706 
1707 
1708 
1709 



Azimuth. 

167-47-00 

113-47-00 

156-52-00 

185-43-30 

247-04-00 

160-39-00 

140-13-00 

I 60-44-00 

205-51-00 

210-41-00 

201-20-00 

205-08-00 

200-05-00 

206-09-00 

208-01-00 

200-15-00 

209-35-00 

1 1 8-06-00 

88-27-00 

356-04-00 

19-22-00 

00-19-30 

91-30-00 

91-08-30 

334-56-00 

306-15-30 

329-43-00 

90-30-00 

90-25-00 

97-12-00 

112-25-00 

66-41-00 

132-47-00 

96-09-00 

138-38-00 

I 64-48-00 

141-13-30 

92-18-30 

94-47-00 

98-13-00 

118-09-00 

121-00-00 



Dist. 

33 
85 
59 
39 
44 
76 
38 

34 
106 

113 
76 
70 

45 
93 
45 
64 

39 

47 

45 
125 

98 

72 

74 
105 

76 

37 

42 

119 

43 
100 



43 
69 
69 
103 
68 
89 
55 
62 

51 

114 

98 

77 



Elevation. 
49.1 
41.8 

39-9 
40.8 

28.5 
10.3 

17-5 
05 . 6 

4-9 
3-9 



3-7 
3-8 

3-5 

3-5 

3-5 

3 

6 

6 

7 

7 



9-5 

14.0 

20 . o 
8.4 
9.2 
5.8 

21.2 

26. 

II . 

27. 

28, 

32.9 
29.8 

35-0 
34-1 
34-1 



-'I 



I 



42.3 
42-5 
41 .2 

45-4 



Ill 



Book. 


rage. 


Sta. 


Azimulh. 


Dist. 


Elcvat 


5 A 


6 1 


1710 


150-31-00 


65.3 


45-2 




f>3 


1711 


134-08-00 


72.2 


41.4 




63 


1712 


112-24-00 


86.8 


43-5 




63 


1713 


I 41-01-00 


95-3 


40.7 




63 


1714 


142-43-00 


82.7 


40.0 




63 


1 7 15 


136-32-00 


62.8 


34-2 




63 


1716 


95-23-00 


59-4 


45-5 




65 


1717 


1 1 9-04-00 


95-6 


45-6 




65 


1718 


107-22-00 


22.4 


47 




45 


1625 


323-26-00 


243 . 8 


3-5 




45 


1626 


36-49-00 


220.3 


4-4 




47 


1627 


31-33-00 


172.8 


3 -5 




47 


1628 


26-16-00 


174-3 


5-5 




47 


1629 


44-52-00 


226.0 


5-8 




47 


1630 


32-04-00 


186.9 


5-5 




47 


1631 


23-04-30 


139-3 


5-6 




47 


1632 


02-47-00 


174-3 


6.1 




49 


^^i?> 


358-45-00 


168.6 


6.7 




40 


1634 


354-47-00 


114.8 


7-1 




49 


1635 


43-49-00 


148.3 


7-4 




49 


1630 


45-44-00 


161 . 2 


7-2 




49 . 


if>37 


46-56-00 


155 -4 


7-2 




49 


1638 


48-22-00 


188.5 


7.0 




51 


1639 


54-00-00 


83-3 


7.0 




51 


1640 


66-30-00 


169.7 


7-9 




51 


1 64 1 


62-40-30 


144.8 


8-7 




51 


1642 


49-04-30 


169.6 


9-9 




51 


1643 


49-58-00 


194-3 


12.4 




51 


1644 


44-49-00 


127.8 


14.1 


4 A 


U7 


1645 


213-31-00 


35 - 3 


3-4 




147 


1646 


226-27-00 


99-5 


8.4 




H7 


1647 


205-21-00 


74-5 


4-0 




147 


1648 


233-18-30 


49-3 


5-2 




147 


1649 


257-43-00 


96.9 


4-7 




147 


1650 


188-22-00 


57-1 


5-1 




149 


1651 


1 1 1-49-00 


49-7 


4-7 




149 


1652 


173-20-30 


74-3 


5-0 




149 


1653 


124-17-30 


40.2 


9-0 




149 


1654 


175-35-00 


45-0 


5-5 




149 


1655 


229-59-00 


46.3 


4-5 




151 


1656 


207-1 i-oo 


50.1 


28.7 




151 


1657 


283-38-30 


158.1 


34-8 



117 



Book. Page. 


Sla. 


Azimuth. 


Dist. 


Elcvalioii 


4 A 151 


1658 


228-24-00 


32.6 


29.0 


151 


1659 


277-21-30 


106.5 


19. 2 


151 


1660 


277-31-00 


29. 2 


18.9 


153 


1661 


283-19-00 


30.5 


15-7 


153 


1662 


255-45-00 


96. 1 


5-2 


153 


1663 


298-19-00 


194- 3 


2 .0 


153 


1664 


145-44-00 


75 


23-5 


155 


[665 


106-49-00 


51-2 


21.6 


155 


[666 


143-46-00 


34-7 


18. 1 


155 


[667 


165-05-00 


75.6 


3-0 


155 


[668 


165-17-00 


93-4 


1 1 • 5 


155 


[669 


237-13-00 


48.7 


1.6 


157 


[670 


1 14-58-00 


18.4 


16.7 


157 


[671 


129-17-00 


41.9 


20. 1 


157 


672 


204-41-00 


'^ 


21.3 


157 1 


^673 


188-34-00 


25 -3 


22 .0 


157 


[674 


168-11-00 


71-3 


18.3 


157 


[675 


93-39-00 


15-9 


15-2 


5 A 21 


[676 


84-00-00 


53 • 9 


14.6 


21 ] 


677 


100-55-00 


23 -4 


18.4 


21 ] 


678 


104-30-00 


64. 2 


16.0 


53 1 


679 


82-59-30 


127-3 


5-4 


53 J 


680 


70-24-00 


128.5 


5-9 


53 5 


681 


56-46-00 


76.9 


6.7 


53 I 


682 


90-08-00 


77.6 


6.5 


53 J 


683 


06-2 7-00 


63.8 


5-t 


53 I 


684 


73-16-00 


50 . 3 


5-S 


55 I 


685 


1 1 8-06-00 


47-3 


6.9 


55 1 


686 


88-27-00 


45-4 


6.7 



31. The line to Middle Creek being thus vouched for. 
the Commission undertook to justify the line to Punta 
Mona which it substituted therefor, by the use of the 
followino^ lansruag^e : 



"With this exception this divide is well determined, 
by closely controlled topography depending upon a 
traverse line run near or along it, under, etc."^ 



^Report of the Commission, p. 55. 



118 

32. There are in that paragraph two fundamental errors. 
The first one is in the reference to "this divide," where 
it is presented as the main divide, whereas the fact is 
that it is no more than the divide which is the north limit oj 
the area which drains into the Atlantic further south than 
Punta Mono. The second, and most important one, is in 
asserting that such divide ''is well determined by closely 
controlled topography depending upon a traverse line run 
near or along it," for it only needs a glance at the map, Plate 
No. VI, to be convinced that the line drawn in black is not 
near the traverse line that was run (in red), but that it 
was distant therefrom at times as far as 3,250 meters, as 
was the case at the point A- 1690, upon the left bank of 
Middle Creek, and at the place close to »Station A-1414, 
in the survey of Punta Mona. 

TyTf. There has been prepared one profile of the traverse 
line that terminates near the mouth of Middle Creek, 
using the same data that is to be found in the field books, 
to which reference has been made. This profile in shown 
on Plate VIII, entitled: "Profile of the traverse line that 
follows a permanent divide to the mouth of Middle Creek, 
together with the profile of the hypothetical line arbitrarily 
drawn across swamp A." 



CHAPTER VII. 



THE LONGITUDINAL PROFILE SUBMITTED BY 
THE COMMISSION. 

1. This profile appears upon a single page and it is 
entitled : 

''Profile of the Sixaola River and of the Divide icJiicJi 
is the north limit of its drainage area, together zcilh 
branch divides to the north.'" 

2. A profile is a section normal to the horizontal plane 
of a line traced upon a surface, and serving to i-epresent 
one aspect of the data used to locate the line in question, 
showing its elevation and the differences in the heights 
of all the points along such line. 

3. But if the points upon the horizontal plan are uncer- 
tain, approximate, hypothetical or arbitrary, as some of 
these appear on the maps of the commission, then the 
profile that is prepared from those points is also subject 
to these same anomalies. 

4. It so happens that there has come to our knowledge 
the motive that led the Commission to present such a 
document and which explains more satisfactorily its 
existence. 

5. It has been said jnore satisfactorily, because it does 
not appear from the series of questions formulated by the 
two countries and laid before the Honorable Arbitrator any 
request made in that respect. Nor is there any indication 
in the plan formulated by the Commission, approved by 
the parties and by the Honorable Arbitrator, that the pres- 
entation of any such profile was contemplated. 

(119) 



120 

6. But ill the " Estrclla de Panama" (Panama Star, a 
newspaper published on the Isthmus), on the 26th of July 
last past, there appeared an interview with Senor Dr. 
Jorge Boyd by the Editor of that periodical, in which the 
former made the statement that such a profile had been 
constructed by the Commission in compliance with one of 
the requests made thereto by Dr. Boyd himself during 
the course of the work, he being the Representative of 
Panama in the Boundary Question. 

7. In that interview, are to be found, literally copied, 
various paragraphs from the Report of the Geologist of 
the Commission and several notes taken from the General 
Report, revealing the fact that such data were already 
within the knowledge and in the possession of Panama, 
before the Honorable Arbitrator knew anything about 
them, and, unless the moral responsibility were placed upon 
the Commission of having communicated its opinion to one 
of the parties, before it was known by the Honorable Judge 
who is to give the decision, it might be supposed that this 
was the result of some confidence on the part of the 
Engineer of that Republic, and on that account to a 
certain extent excusable; but what neither is, nor can 
be a matter of confidence nor excusable, was the fact that 
appeared in that article in the "Estrella," where Senor 
Boyd declared, in speaking of the documents submitted 
to the Honorable Arbitrator, using the following language : 
"Beside there is one special profile, on a single sheet, 
entitled: 'A combined profile of the River Sixaola and of 
the drainage from the area of the same river throughout 
its entire extent,' as far as Punta Mona, which I particu- 
hirly asked for in one of my requests to the Commission ^ 

7. Compare the translation made by Dr. Boyd with 
the original title of the map and with what is said in this 



121 

respect on pages 2 and 5 of the report of the Conniiission, 
and their identity will be manifest. 

8. The facts, therefore, appear, as evidenced by Dr. 
Boyd himself, that the Commission, in the preparation 
of the profile submitted, did comply strictly with one of 
the various requests that Panama made to it directly, 
through its Representative. 



CHAPTER VIII. 



NEW PROOFS. 

1. It has been stated that the hne drawn upon the maps 
as the Divide of the Sixaola Basin on the iwrtJi, does not in 
any of its intermediary or its extreme points, meet the 
conditions of the Loubet Award. 

As stated elsewhere this demonstration has been founded 
solely and exclusively upon facts and arguments derived 
from the reports of the Commission itself. 

2. The different portions of that line of uncertain, 
approximate, hypothetical or arbitrary character, were 
pointed out and records were produced of another line that 
combined with the first, and having its same irregularities 
did not terminate at Punta Mona but near the mouth of 
Middle Creek, and for this reason, perhaps, was not 
included or marked upon the maps of the Commission. 

3. As a consequence of this demonstration, it is now 
possible to state the corollary to be drawn therefrom. 

No unity of agreement whatever exists between the maps 
and the reports presented, nor is there any unity or agreement 
found to exist between the reports and the data obtained for 
their preparation. 

4. These categorical conclusions are strong enough to 
destroy the arguments against the facts established, and 
now this seems the proper place to detail the causes which 
have influenced their appearance in the report. 

That is the purpose of the present chapter. 

5. It will be for the first and last time, contrary to the 
plan followed hitherto, that we are compelled to use proofs 
derived from other sources than those from which all our 
conclusions have been taken. It could not be otherwise, 
since it is, indeed, illogical to undertake to prove an irreg- 

(122) 



123 

ularity by the same irregularity; a theorem cannot be 
demonstrated by using the same hypothesis stated in 
submitting it. 

6. As a prehminary, however, it may be well to state 
that the proofs about to be offered are also within the 
knowledge of the Commission and that they were sub- 
mitted by the opposing party, Panama. 

7. It could not be expected, naturally, that Panama 
would submit documents in this matter that were favorable 
to Costa Rica. Panama, however, did put into the hands 
of the Commission the results of its own investigations, 
its plans and its documents; but it is also true that in so 
doing it could not have foreseen the use to which they 
w^ould be put in the course of events ; — still the fact is that 
such data were in the possession of the Commission and if 
Costa Rica now makes use of them, not however in its 
own favor but merely to show the reasons for the irreg- 
ularity of the documents of the Commission, they must 
be admitted. 

8. That these documents to which reference is made 
w^ere in the possession of the Commission and used b}^ it, 
is made evident by the detailed citations made therefrom 
in the course of the present analyses. 

These antecedents having been settled, let us now get to 
the bottom of the matter. 

9- (a) The Commission presented a line of the North 
Divide of the Sixaola Basin, measuring 148 kilometers^ 

(b) Panama submitted to the Commission the plan of 
the line claimed by it, measuring only 109 kilometers; that 
is to say, a distance of 39 kilometers less." 



^See the longitudinal profile prepared at the request of Panama 
and without the knowledge of the Honorable Arbitrator, as 
shown in Chapter VII. 

^See the plan by Doctor Don Abel Bravo, of December, 19 10. 



124 

10. Whatever that hue may be — the one offered by the 
Panama Plan, — it does reveal the fact that it followed the 
crest or summit of a cordillera, which in its lower portion 
and near the coast coincided exactly with that of the Com- 
mission in the course where the Commission designated it 
as arbitrary and hypotheticaP, but from Buena Vista this 
line branched off and ran closer to the vSixaola and Telire 
Rivers until Monte Uren was reached. 

11. This Monte Uren, the name of which is found u})on 
the map of vSchor Peralta', is situated at 83° 29' 00" longi- 
tude west from Greenwich and 9° 38' north latitude; and 
upon the map of Petermann's Mittheilungen, year 1900, 
Plate 22, at 83° 33' 00" longitude west from Greenwich 
and 9° 36' north latitude, — is not defined as being the 
Chirripo Grande placed by the Commission at 83° 29' 38" 
west of Greenwich and 9^ 29' 2" north latitude, for the 
difference in latitude is very considerable. 

12. At this Monte Uren Panama found that the crest 
it was following connected with the Cordillera desig- 
nated upon its map under the name of "Cordillera of 
Talamanca," at the end of the 109 kilometers measured 
from Punta Mona; whilst the maps of the Commission 
connected its line at Chirripo Grande at the end of 148 
kilometers from Punta Mona. 

13. As has been already stated, it could not be expected 
that Panama would offer proofs favorable to Costa Rica, 
but it is clear that such line, if it did exist, would best 

^" It therefore be understood that there, is no actual, permanent, 
natural divide, nor parting of the waters across swamp A * * *." 
Report of the Commission, p. 53. 

"Peralta: Mapa Uistorico Geogrdfico dc Costa Rica y del 
Ducado dc, Veragua (Historical -Geographical Map of Costa 
Rica and of the Dukedom of Veragua), by Don Manuel M. de 
Peralta; Madrid, 1892. Special edition for the Fourth Cente- 
nary of the Discovery of America. 



125 

suit Panama if it were as long as possible, just as it would 
best suit Costa Rica if it were the shortest possible, as 
thus each one would obtain the most territory. 

Nevertheless, it appears that the survey made by 
Panama was in December, 19 lo; that is, some months 
after the Treaty of Washington was celebrated between 
the plenipotentiaries, Anderson and Porras; and when 
the Engineer commissioned by Panama — Dr. Bravo — 
was surveying this line, he knew that his work would be 
carefully examined by an impartial commission of experts 
provided for in that treaty, so that he had every reason 
for seeking to execute the work as correctly as it was 
possible to do it. 

Doctor Don Abel Bravo, commissioned for that purpose 
by Panama, undertook those investigations with the aid 
of a French Engineer, M. Lambert, who had come to the 
Isthmus during the period the French Canal Company 
was at work there, and who had located at Bocas del Toro 
for some years. These two competent engineers, both 
of them familiar with the region, determined by direct 
survevs, using the chain, that the distance from Punta 
Mona to Monte Uren was 109 kilometers. Thus measured 
and laid down upon their map, it was submitted to the 
Commission. 

14. Notwithstanding this, the Commission deviated 
from it and showed the distance of 148 kilometers. 

15. Neither is the line that Panama offered approved, 
nor is it admitted that it should be heeded ; on the con- 
trary the facts are stated simply for the purpose of estab- 
lishing a logical comparison between them and deducing 
the consequences that flow therefrom. If the plans are 
laid over one another, the Panama Line will be found 
to lie, in its upper portion, between the divide delineated 
by the Commission and the Rivers Sixaola and Telire. 



126 



1 6. For greater clearness, the following statement sum- 
marizes the comparison: 



6. 



Panama Line. 

In its lower portion it co- 
incides with that of the 
Commission. 

Panama would naturally 
be partial in the execu- 
tion of its surveys. 

Panama did the work 
with only a single party 
in the field. 

Panama proceeded upon 
an unbroken course 
from Buena Vista to 
the Main Cordillera. 

Panama measured its dis- 
tances directly with the 
chain. 



Panama Line. 

Panama did not abandon 
its continuous line to 
Monte Uren, where it 
declared it found the 
connection with the 
Main Cordillera of the 
crest it was surveying. 



Commission Line. 

In its lower portion it co- 
incides with that of 
Panama. 

The Commission must be 
impartial in the execu- 
tion of its surveys. 

The Commission did the 
work with four parties 
in the field. 

The course of the Com- 
mission was broken be- 
tween Buena Vista and 
the Main Cordillera. 

The Commission meas- 
ured its distances in- 
directly, by calcula- 
tion and some courses 
by trigonometrical 
means and others by 
estimating distances 
by the time taken to 
traverse them. 

Commission Line. 

The Commission did 
abandon its continu- 
ous line, and went to 
San Jose de CostaRica 
to undertake it at the 
other extreme, and by 
a hypothesis fixing 
there the connection 
with the Main Cordil- 
lera. 



127 

1 7- It is not strange that after this accumulation of 
irregularities so great a difference was finally reached 
between the two distances. 

Such an assemblage of mixed data could lead to nothing 
else but to mistake the facts and, at least, to exhibit them, 
in a veiled and covered form. 

1 8. As a matter of fact, every one knows that uniform 
procedure in surveys is the best guaranty of accuracy. 
The longitude of one of the railway lines from Washington 
to New York would of course be more correct if its meas- 
urement was verified by a direct and uniform procedure 
than if it were done by sections, using indirect means and 
even taking as to some portions the method of determining 
the distance by the time it took a roadman to traverse 
them. 

That is just what occurred in the case of these two sur- 
veys, one made by order of Panama and the other by the 
Commission. 

19. Let it be repeated that the measures of Panama 
are not accepted ; they are cited solely for the purpose of 
comparing them with those of the Commission. These, 
likewise, are not accepted. 

20. As may be seen by the Minutes (Appendix No. i), 
the Commission stopped without finishing the studies it was 
pursuing upon the left side of the Sixaola, and it moved 
to San Jose de Costa Rica to take them up anew from a 
point that it made the terminus of a spur by a hypothesis 
as untenable as the others. 

21. It is evident at once that it was practically quite 
impossible to know whether that extremity which it had 
assumed was or was not the terminus of the spur that it 
had stopped studying, — no one knew if it were, nor could 
they know. It pointed this out in its declaration very 



128 

positively, when it said: "* * * that divide, if such 
divide exists.^" 

22. For such a change to have been legal and allowable, 
and for the connection of the two extremities of the line to 
have been justified, it would have been necessary and 
indispensable : 

(i) To determine exactly the astronomical situ- 
ation of a point of the line or of its extremity on the 
left side of the Sixaola; 

(2) To determine in like manner the astronomical 
situation of a point on the line begun on the side of 
San Jose de Costa Rica; and 

(3) To connect the extremities of the two lines, 
correctly calculated in azimuth and distance from 
the points astronomically fixed. 

23. Quite the contrary appears to have been the case; 
none of these three operations were performed, instead, 
the connection was made by the use of approximate and 
uncertain lines, the very start from the extremity of the 
upper part of the line being altogether hypothetical. 

24. That is the reason for the great discrepancy be- 
tween the two lines and indeed for the gra\'e error of the 
Commission. 

25. The line that Panama drew is not admissible under 
anv theory, but this line along the summit of a cordillera 
Iving quite near to the Sixaola and Telire rivers and 
their valleys, is an indication of the existence of another 
high and elevated range between the one traced by the 
Commission and the same rivers, at the foot of which 
would then be the line that closes the valley upon the 
north. 



'Report of the Commission, p. 55. 



129 

26. The accompanying map Plate No. VII shows a 
drawing of the two lines; — the outside one, with a black 
line, two black lines, two broken lines and an ending of 
dashes, is the one dehneated by the Commission; — while 
the inside one, traced with a line made up of dots and 
dashes, is the one drawn by Panama. 

27. It has been demonstrated that the one of the Com- 
mission is : 

(i) Approximate from the coast to a point situated 
at 82° 29' 3" longitude west of Greenwich and 9° t^t,' g" 
north latitude. 

(2) Imaginary and arbitrary from Punta Mona to 
Point A. 

(3) Uncertain from D-629 to A-2511 ; — and 

(4) Arbitrary again from A-2511 to Chirripo 
Grande. 

28. The comparison made of the two hnes that have 
been drawn reveals to us therefore the fact that from 
Point-A, the location of which is 82° 40' 45'' west of Green- 
wich and 9° 36' north latitude, to Buena Vista, the Com- 
mission Line is almost the same, with some insignificant 
variations, as the one delineated by the Engineer Bravo, 
as also is the hypothetical and arbitrary section that ter- 
minates at Punta Mona; but from Buena Vista two hnes 
appear, the divergence of which is notable ; the one by the 
Commission farther to the north and the one of Panama 
farther to the south and closer to the Rivers Sixaola and 
Telire. 

29. It is evident that arguments by one of the parties that 
are not based upon data submitted by the experts (the Com- 
mission) are without any force before the Honorable Arbi- 
trator, but if these arguments are employed by the oppo- 
site party they become proofs of the highest order and of 



130 

as much force and value as those presented by the Com- 
mission itself. That is just the case here : the line claimed 
by Panama, one of the interested parties, is shorter and 
lies inside the one that the experts indicated. Such a 
situation, as a matter of fact, makes both of the lines 
doubtful; that of Panama as being biased and that of 
the Commission on account of having neglected to con- 
sider the Cordillera crest that appears to run parallel to 
the one traced by it and nearer and closer to the Rivers 
Sixaola and Telire; that is to say, more in accord with 
the conditions imposed upon the Commission. 

30. There was a neglect to characterize the portion to 
which we have alluded among all the anomalies as to the 
other sections of this line, but Panama has come to our 
aid in its designation and to establish with as much effect 
as the admissions of the Commission that the portion 
between Buena Vista and Station D-629 constitutes a 
doubtful section. 

31. It is therefore worth while to complete the state- 
ment made in Paragraph 27 above, by the following 
addition. 

The supposed North divide of the Commission begins 
at a point the co-ordinates of which are: 82° 34' 38" 
longitude west of Greenwich and 9° 35' north latitude, 
and it ends at Chirripo at 83° 29' 30" longitude west 
of Greenwich and 9° 29' 30" north latitude.' That line 
is made up as shown on the following page. 

(i) Report of the Commission, page 53. 



131 



fin 



h4 



c o 
o 



1-1 O) ro ^ lO 



:: o 

ON o 



lo o o 



ro^ O ■^ ON 
CO rO ^ rO CN 



0\ On On On On 



CO ^ O 



to O 
rf CO 



On O r^ lO ON 

CO "^ *-i <N CN 



(N CN CO CO CO 
00 00 00 00 00 



h4 



be O 



pq 



biO 

a 
o 
h4 



o 



o 



o o 

CN O 



>OCO VO O '+ 

CO CO CO ■+ CO 



On On On On On 



00 O lO O 
CO CO ^ O 



CO CO ^ 1-1 



0) CN (N CO CO 
00 00 00 00 00 



>. 



c3 



vh b/D-G a; 
Oh oj 3 o 

a s o ^ 



qS< 



M M CO ^ "O 





^ . 


-,^ 


ID t^ 
. lO 




0- . 


^d 


aa 


a c 


« S 


o o 


o o 






t« t/i 


t" ^ 


OT c/5 


I/) (/i 






a a 


S g 


a a 


,a a 


o o 


. o o 


vu 


anama 
theC 
the C 


<V (V 


^^ 


+-> +-1 


<+-( t+H 


O <-l-H M-H 

P^ o o 


o o 


-M 4-1 


"o +-" +-' 


u u 




O O 


Map 
Repo 
Repo 


a o. 


(U (U 


p^p^ 







132 

32. This shows how the documents presented by 
Panama have come to constitute the most eloquent proof 
of the errors in the course followed by the Commission, 
because they are not only evidence of those errors but 
they point out and indicate the reason why they orignated. 
Panama could not enter into the territory at San Jose to 
assume, as the Commission did assume, the extreme point 
of the supposed divide line and for that reason its investi- 
gation was continued from its beginning at Buena Vista 
to its ending at Uren. 

33. The reasons stated have also justified the use of 
the arguments foreign to the Report of the Engineers 
but not foreign to the subject under discussion. 



CHAPTER IX. 



THE DIVIDE BETWEEN THE WATERSHEDS OF THE 
TWO OCEANS. 

1. The preceding chapters have been devoted exclu- 
sively to the analysis of the supposed divide limiting the 
vSixaola Basin upon the north and the conclusions of the 
previous chapter have summed up the prior ones and 
demonstrated the mistakes of the Commission, as well as 
shown the cause and source of those mistakes. 

The present chapter will analyze the divide traced by 
the Commission, supposed by it to separate the water- 
sheds of the two oceans. 

2. It should be mentioned here that the corollary stated 
in paragraph 3 of Chapter VIII, resulting from the exam- 
ination of the Sixaola divide, is not applicable to this divi- 
sion. On the contrary there is as to this divide a uni- 
formity in the proceedings of the Commission, more unity 
and a great degree of harmony between the maps and the 
reports, both of these characterizing it with the frank and 
honest statement of the truth — "This section is approxi- 
mate and uncertain."^ 

3. Indeed, it was demonstrated by unquestionable data 
that the ending of the divide at Chirripo Grande was in 
no way justified. The Commission arbitrarily assumed 
that point, as it could have assumed any other whatever 
in that region, and the course of three kilometers only 
which was run toward the northwest from Chirripo is a 
proof of its arbitrary character. 

^Report of the Commission, top of page 57. 

(133) 



134 

4- In the same way it was seen that the paramo or high 
plateau which was attained at Chirripo Grande, not by 
any means in a continuous or uniform manner, for the 
work was stopped and the entire outfit engaged in the 
survey transferred to San Jose de Costa Rica, was 
wide and extensive and it was discussed enough to make 
it evident that this point was an arbitrary one. There 
would have been no need for all this argument inasmuch 
as the Commission itself proclaimed the fact, when it said 
that "* * * the line from Chirripo Grande to Durika 
is uncertain. * * *"^ 

5. It is proper to observe, now, the mathematical con- 
tradiction in which the Commission fails in speaking of 
the accuracy in the tracing of the North Divide : It states 
on page 54 that : "The remainder of the divide is drawn as 
a continuous line indicating that it is known wdth a con- 
siderable degree of accuracy," — this line is marked thus at 
Chirripo Grande — and three pages further on — top of page 
57 — it says that: "* * * in the portion from C/ii'm^o 
Grande to Durika and from Dome to Cerro Pando, where 
there is some uncertainty as to the location * * *" 
i. e., Chirripo Grande is certain for the extremity of the 
line and at the same time uncertain for the beginning of 
the other, which is its continuation. 

6. It would be of no consequence that the section from 
Durika to Dome were correctly localized, if it did not 
appear joined in a satisfactory way to the two extremi- 
ties of the divide. 

7. The map of Dr. Bravo, a document submitted by 
Panama, raises again a doubt in this respect; the Main 
Cordillera is called here "Cordillera de Talamanca" and 
starts, in this map, from Monte Uren, where the crest that 



^See the conventional signs on map No. i, sheet No. i. 



135 

begins at Buena Vista terminates. This Panamanian line 
is enclosed by th^ uncertain divide drawn by the Com- 
mission and as the one is biased by reason of being sub- 
mitted by one of the parties (Panama) and the other is 
uncertain according to the declaration made by the Com- 
mission itself, it is not possible to solve the question and 
it ought to be left as an acknowledged uncertainty. 

8. It would not be proper to allege that the examination 
and preparation of the Panama map was wrong, just 
because so great a difference existed between the two 
courses. It has been shown that the surveys by Panama 
were more methodical and more uniform than those made 
by the Commission, and consequently, in case of a dis- 
crepancy, the probabilities are very much greater in favor 
of the correctness of the Panama map, more particularly 
as on the very face of the one made by the Commission 
there is the confession of uncertainty, whilst the Panama 
map does not suggest any doubt. 

9. The portion between Durika and Dome was sur- 
veyed by the Commission sending a field party by Punta 
Arenas (Costa Rica) to Boruca, upon the Pacific side; 
and thence this field party proceeded by a trail to- 
wards the Cordillera, as far as ''Cruz del Obispo" (the 
Bishop's Cross), a camping place of our well remembered 
Bishop of Costa Rica, Dr. B. A. Thiel; but from here the 
investigations to one side and the other of ' ' Cruz del Obispo ' ' 
concerning the ridge or crest of the Cordillera did not 
extend beyond Durika upon the west and Dome upon the 
east. 

10. The very situation of the extremity delineated by 
the Commission is uncertain. The words used "Possibly 
Cerro Pando," indicate a probability, nothing more, but 
no certainty. 



13(i 

II. This point seems to be one of vital importance, if 
it is considered that the error as to its situation, as the 
Report of the Engineers certifies ip. 5*91. is greater in an 
east to west direction than in the north to south direction, 
for since the upper end of the southern frontier is not fixed, 
there would be left between the two countries a territory 
that might be of considerable extent, without any frontier 
line, nor anv wav to mark it. 



SUMM.ARV OF THE DOCL MENTS PRESENTED B^ 
THE COA\A\ISSION. 

1 . After all of these papers have been studied with due 
attention, it is not difficult to formulate a summary of 
them. 

2. The Report and the IMaps of the Commission are 
distinguished by three essential characteristics : 

The first is what they appear to say ; 

The second is what they really mean ; and 

The third is what they ought to state and to mean. 

L 

The first characteristic does not need any comments. 

But. as it has been pointed out, in accordance with all 
the proofs established, the submerged divide c<.'/i/o'; cuds 
at Punta Mona MUST BE WITHDRAWN FROM THE 
MAPS; IT BEING A CREATION OF THE COM- 
MISSION AND NOT A FACT OF NATURE. 

II. 

3. The result of the analysis demonstrates the second. 
Sufficient data are to be found in the documents to 



137 

establish the facts, as they have been established, and 
at the same time there are data enough to annul and 
destroy those arguments presented which are not in 
accordance with the actual facts. 

4. The truth is always to be found if we go to the bottom 
of a question, and the contradictions that appear are 
explained by the same citations and data furnished. 

5. The Commission could not have established the 
irregularities affecting its studies and the maps of the 
Sixaola and Telire divides any more honestly, nor could it 
have been less frank in its expression in considering the 
results of its examination of the divide between the two 
oceans, than it did in stating that it was left uncertain. 

6. Incapacitated by those very irregularities, it would 
not proceed to formulate the answer to the questions pro- 
pounded by the two countries — not for lack of data col- 
lected, but for want of a method for their analysis. 

7. The Commission from its inception being led by the 
erroneously preconceived idea of a divide, at the very 
outset upset the methodical plan that would have con- 
duced to the establishment of the truth without any cir- 
cumlocution, in a clear and definite way. The Sixaola 
divide,"* * * if such divide exists * * *. " always 
was and it will be one of the things perhaps least needed 
in the whole question, but this secondary and insignificant 
matter was considered by the Commission as the sole and 
only object of its investigations. This was the basic reason 
for all of its mistakes. 

8. The effort to give credit to an unjustifiable hypothe- 
sis, laying down a priori a theory so foreign to the question 



138 

and trying to convert it into the object of the question 
itself, notwithstanding all the probability to the contrary^ 
and despite the clearness and conciseness of the conditions 
and documents within the control of the Commission 
indicating that it should be an analytical investigation, 
devoid of any preconceived element, led it to deductions 
at variance with the real significance of the facts, but 
which it has been easy to demoHsh with the same trust- 
worthy data that appear in the papers themselves. 

III. 

9. In the preceding paragraph the intimation was made 
for the first time of the reason for all the mistakes pointed 
out in the analysis, and that was the method adopted. 

10. The Commission well knew the subject matter upon 
which it was to give an expert opinion and the causes that 
had given rise thereto. This appears from the data that 
it communicated and is shown by the first 35 pages in its 
report. Therein may be found the whole of the original 
Loubet Award, the Anderson-Porras Treaty, the questions 
propounded by the two countries and the plan under which 
the investigations were to be made. This plan held 
already in embryo the bad system adopted by the Com- 
mission, and indeed paragraph (a) of that plan said:^ 

"A topographical survey from Punta Mona along 
the divide which is the north limit of the drainage 
area of the Tarire or Sixaola River to its junction with 
the Main Cordillera." 

1 1 . This first clause of Plan V, which seems to give to it 
the character of a study or investigation, is correct, but 
not as the basis and admitted object, not as an accom- 



'Report of the Commission, p. 12. 



139 

plished fact which it should be sought to demonstrate by 
the use of every sort of argument and even imaginary 
suppositions. 

12. The Commission, in the discharge of its duties and 
having proved that Punta Mona is isolated by an enor- 
mous swamp, that separates it from the rest of the main 
land, ought to have stopped there so far as regards clause 
(a) of said report (p. 12), establishing the fact that no 
divide starts from Punta Mona, but that this locality is 
found upon a basin foreign to that of the Sixaola, 
and not even contiguous thereto, for that might give rise 
to doubt and still more, if any divide did exist there, that 
divide is not the one that limits upon the north the basin 
of the Sixaola. 

13. On the contrary, however, the Commission, instead 
of all this, settled a priori as existing in fact what it ought 
to have studied and proved, whether it did exist or not; 
and hence the origin of all its irregularities and mistakes. 

14. The Commission changed the subject of study into 
the basis of study. Clause (a) of Plan V, cited (p. 12, 
Report of the Commission), was a subject Proposed, not an 
admitted conclusion. As a subject or theory it was allow- 
able; but not as a conclusion or fact. This clause was 
headed: "The survey is to embrace * * *": the plan 
did not say, " * * * it is a-fact that * * *." 

15. It has, then, been purely a question of method, 
and if instead of taking the supposed divide for granted, the 
Commission had devoted its efforts to investigating the 
realitv or the supposition of the fact stated, it would then 
have proceeded in compliance with its duties. 

16. The course taken by our studies of this matter has 
brought out the continuous tendency that is noted in the 
documents, to try to estabHsh such a divide, contrary to the 

1.539 — II 



140 

real facts, even going so far as to emplo}' an erroneous and 
false hypothesis, shown to be so by the very data furnished 
by the Commission itself. 

17. If instead of considering as demonstrated what it 
should have taken up as something to be demonstrated, 
the Commission had proceeded in an analytical way to 
search for the truth, its methods and conclusions would 
have been altogether different. To get the topography oj 
the entire territory and from it deduce all the facts as they really 
and actually exist; that was the whole of its mission, in 
its double character, technical and expert; but from 
the very moment that it devoted itself, without regard 
to the means, arguments or the hypotheses used, to the 
effort to demonstrate one of the things presented solely for 
investigation, treating it as it were an accomplished fact, 
the Commission disregarded its duty and converted itself 
into an advocate, getting away, from the question. 

18. It is true that this question was proposed by 
Panama, but it was in conditional terms. Panama said:^ 
"If any such branch, secondary divide or counterfort 
exists * * * " , a phraseology of which the Commission 
also made use when it stated "* * * if such divide 
exists * * ''"','" and saying this too after all the inves- 
tigations that had been made which should have developed 
whether it did or not exist. 

19. The object of all this conditional part, like all the 
others of the questions submitted, was to have the Com- 
mission establish or reject it; — to either accept it in view of 
the data that might be secured in its favor, or deny its 
correctness after considering all the facts opposed to it; 
but contrary to what was expected, the Commission 

^Report of the Commission, bottom of page 21. 
-Report of the Commission, p. 55 (^ 2). 



141 

assumed its existence as certain, without any premises 
authorizing it, although the party interested sumbitted it 
as doubtful. 

20. The logic of these facts is so irresistible, that the 
arguments would be the same if the Commission instead of 
assuming as an accomplished fact one of the things pre- 
sented in a conditional form by Panama, had taken up one 
of those submitted by Costa Rica. For example, it would 
not have been admissible for the Commission to have per- 
sisted in an effort to demonstrate the nonexistence of the 
supposed spur, if in order to do so it became necessary to 
have recourse to pre-historic hypotheses in the field of 
geology or to those common to the present epoch. That 
was the manner in which it did proceed, — in the first case 
under the theory of a submergence and in the second under 
the erroneous supposition of an inundation, in the attempt 
to arrive at a demonstration that fell by its own weight 
and could not resist the slightest analysis. 

21. The recourse to hypotheses is excluded in expert 
opinions. 

22. As already stated, the greatest source of error was 
the method adopted. In order to secure all the requisite 
data the Commission was called upon to furnish, the logi- 
cal and impartial procedure would have been to once hav- 
ing shown the course of the Sixaola, to take cross sections 
at convenient intervals, perpendicular to the axis of the 
current of the river. No opinions would thus have been 
advanced nor hypotheses offered, either ancient or modern, 
but with the simple facts that were collected it would have 
been easy to answer the questions propounded and to' 
state the real and actual facts regarding the region. Those 
cross sections could have been prolonged as far as the 
divides, if it were desired, without relying upon any data 



142 

or document offered by either one of the parties, which the 
Commission had the right to disregard and was even under 
obUgation to put aside, as dangerously compromising its 
impartiaHty in the discharge of its duty. 

23. It is proper to say here, at the conclusion oftljis 
third division, that the first reading of the opinion of the 
Commission was a source of real surprise. A frank and 
ingenuous statement of the facts had been expected: 
In a paper entitled "The Manzanillo Basin" and prepared 
on the 14th of May of last year, after making the general 
statement, the writer said: 

"From the foregoing allegations, which will appear 
in all their fullness and detail in the work and reports 
of the Commission, the following facts are evident: 

1 . That the place called Punta Mona is found to be 
situated upon a watershed directly upon the ocean, 
characterized by rivers of this second basin or water- 
shed, being absolutely independent of the basins of 
the Sixaola and the North River. 

2. That the foregoing conclusion establishes with- 
out any question that no line that starts from Punta 
Mona can reach, in any direction it may be traced, 
any valley or any other place that directly or indi- 
rectly belongs to the River Sixaola, without first 
cutting and traversing this second watershed, en- 
tirely foreign to the watershed or basin of the 
Sixaola." 

The paper ended as follows: 

"The investigations that are now being carried on 
by the surveying Commission will show the perfect 
distinction between the basin of the vSixaola and that 
of Manzanillo." 



143 

24- Assuredly, to these very conclusions we have in 
the end arrived, not, however, as had been expected, in the 
form of a clear and precise statement, but by means of a 

well founded criticism and by the force of the facts. 

LUIS MATAMOROS, 

Consulting Engineer of Costa Rica. 

Washington, D. C. September 19, 19 13. 



INDEX OF PLATES. 



PiyATE No. I. — Map showing the territory personally examined 
by the Geologist. Chapter I, sects. 5, 10. 

Plate No. II. — A map based on those of the Commission of 
Engineers, 'showing the main points and lines discussed, and 
the line which closes on the north the valley of the Sixaola 
River. Chapter II, sects. 40, 55, 59, 65. Chapter III, sects. 
20, 30. Chapter V, sect. 40. 

Plate No. III. — Map showing the only data taken by the 
Commision of Engineers at Punta Mona and surroundings. 
Chapter V, sect. 4. Chapter VI, sects. 12, 17. 

Plate No. IV. — Lines drawn by Dr. Abel Bravo and the Com- 
mission of Engineers. (Near Punta Mona). Chapter V, 
sects. 13, 34. 

Plate No. V. — Bravo's map. Chapter V, sects. 13, 14, 34. 
Chapter VIII, sect. 7. 

Plate No. VI. — Map showing the line suppressed by the Com- 
mission and the line substituted therefor. Chapter VI, sects. 
20, 29. 

Plate No. VII. Map showing two lines from Punta Mona to 
Chirripo Grande and to Monte Uren drawn respectively by 
the Commission of Engineers and Dr. Abel Bravo, Consulting 
Engineer of Panama. Chapter VIII, sect. 26. 

Plate No. VIII. — Profile of the traverse line that follows a 
permanent divide to the mouth of Middle Creek, together 
with the profile of the hypothetical line arbitrarily drawn 
across swamp A. Chapter VI, sect. ^2. 

(1^4) 



INDEX. 

Chap. Sec. 

Andes, Cordillera V i 

Antillite, de Gabb IV Q. XIV 

Appendices to General Report II 2 

No. 3 V 9 

Approximate course V 23, 32 

IV 5, O. IV 

" and uncertain divide IX 2 

Arbitrary course IV 5- Q- IV. 

and hypothetical line II 10,11,15,18, 

21, 39 

IV 8, Q.I 

Arbitrator, Honorable II 11,27, 

VII 

President of France II 9, 1 1, 

Area explored by the Geologist I 3, 4, 10 

Ashmead, Commissioner V 11 

Award, French 1111,42,45,50,56 

Basic, rocks IV 4, Q- ^ 

Basin, Sixaola IV 4. Q- IV 

II 27,43,46 

Boyd, Senor Doctor VII 6, 7 

Books, Field (Party A) V i 

Bravo, Doctor Abel V i, 2, 14, 16 

VIII 9, 28, plate V 

VI 14 

Buena Vista IV 4, 5, Q. I 

IV 6, Q. IV 

IV 3, Q. VIII 
(145) 



146 



Chap. Sec. 

Buena Vista II 57 

VIII 28 

Cana La Creek Ill 8 

Cerro Doble ^ IV 4, Q. X 

Cerro Pando, situation of IV i, Q- HI 

IV ,3, Q. V 

IV 2, Q. VI 

IX 5 "^ 
Counterfort II 

IV 6, O. IV 

Cordillera, Main IV 2, 3, 0. I 

IX 7 ^ 

" " IV 4,0. IV 

IV 3, O. II 

Cross vSections Ill i , 2 

Cuabre IV 3, Q. X 

II 60, 

Chirripo Grande II 66 

IV 3, Q. I 

" " IV I, Q. VI 

IX 3,4,5 

Divide hypothetical II 5 

" Main IV 4, Q. IV 

" which is the north limit of the area 
which drains into the Atlantic further 

south than Punta Mona II 15, 29, 38,539 

" limiting upon the north the Sixaola 

basin IV 3, Q. I 

" of the two oceans IX i 

uncertain II 64 

Documents, summary of the IX 

Dome IX 5, 6, 9 

IV I, Q. Ill 

Doubtful portion VIII 30 

Durika Ill 28 



147 

Chap. Sec. 

Durika IV 6, O. IV 

IX 5, 6 

Equation of lines VI 13 

Bvanston II 5,8 

Evaporation I 16 

Explanation as to the tracing of the line that 
closes the Valley of Sixaola upon the 

north Ill I 

Facts, furnished by the reports I 21 

" observed in situ II 4 

" established by the Geologist I 18, 19 

Field books of the Party A V i 

French Award II 1 1, 38 

Gabb, Wm IV i, Q. II 

Gadokan Creek I 12, 13, 14 

II 13, 22, 23, 26, 

29, 34. 36. 

III 8 

IV 7. Q-I 

V 24 

Geological investigations, Punta Mona ex- 
cluded from I 4 

Geologist, area explored by the I 10 

" limits of the territory personally 

explored by the I 2, 3, 4 

hypothesis of the IV 4, Q. XIV 

opinion of the I 11 

Grape Point, Punta Uva IV 3, Q. VIII 

IV 3, Q.xii 

IV 10, Q. I 

Guabito II 25 

Hodgdon, Commissioner II 12, 22, 28, 34 

IV I, Q. X 

IV 2, Q. XIV 



148 



Chap. 
Hypothetical line II 

" divide IV 

Hypothesis of the Geologist IV 

Hypothesis V 

Imaginary portion IV 

V 
Limits of the territory explored by the 

Geologist I 

Line north divide VIII 

" which closes on the north the Valley of 

Sixaola Ill 

' ' drawn by Dr. Bravo and the Commis- 
sion V 

Loubet Award V 

Low Saddles II 

Main Cordillera II 

" points and line discussed II 

III 



Manzanillo. 



Meteorological observations . 
Middle Creek 



II 
IV 
IV 
IV 
IV 
IV 
.1 
.II 
IV 
IV 
VI 



Sec. 
lo, II, 15, 18, 
21, 38. 

6, Q. IV 

4, Q. XIV 
26 

5. Q. IV 

21 

2>3, 4 

27 

In plate No.II 

13, see Plate 
No. IV 

I, VII 

36 

56,68 

40, 55. 59, 65 
20, 30, see 

Plate 11. 
12, 22,34 
10, Q. I 
3. Q- XII 
I, O. XV. 
I, 0. XVII. 
I, Q. XVIII 
20 

7, 12, 25, 34 

7.QI 

I, O. XVIII 

5 



149 



Chap. 

Panama V 

Estrella de (Newspaper) VII 

" proofs VIII 

" map IX 

Pando Cerro IX 

Party A, chief of II 

Plates (see Index of Plates.) 

Peralta, N. M. de VIII 

Phrases suppressed in the report II 

Pico Blanco Ill 

IV 

Piedra Grande Ill 

IV 
Profiles VI 

Proofs, new VIII 

Punta Mona I 

II 



IV 
IV 

IV 
IV 
IV 
IV 
IV 
IV 
V 

.1 
II 

.IV 

.II 



B.eport of the Geologist. 

Rocks, basic 

Sanchez 



Sec. 
i8 
6 



4. 7, 23, 31 

II 

3 
28 

2, 4, Q. V 
14, 16, 24. 

2, 4. Q- n 

32,, see plate 
No. VIII. 

I 

4 

5, 7, 10, 15, 17 
20, 21, 25, 
29, 31, 36, 
38, 39 

8. 10, Q.I 

Q. IV, Q. 

VII 

4, Q. XVIII 

3. XII 

3, VIII 
I, XVI 

I, 6, Q. XV. 
I, 0. XVII 
I 

I, 17 
31 

4, Q. 11 

5, 56, 57 



150 

Chap. Sec. 

San Jose VIII 32 

Shiroli II 62 

Sirukicha II 71 

IV 4, Q. I 

Sixaola, branch of the I 12 

Sixaola II 12, 13, 20, 22, 

23, 24, 34, 
36, 39, 40, 
41. 57, 60, 
61, 64 
IV I, Q. II 

Basin of the II 27, 43, 46 

IV 4, Q. IV 

Delta of the IV O. XIII, 

XVIII 

Divergence with the Gadokan I 14 

Lower I 12 

ParalleHsm with the Gadokan I 14 

River IV 2, Q. XII 

IV I, 3, Q. VIII 
IV 7. Q-I 
IV 0. II 
III 6, 8, 19 

Valley IV 2, 3, 6, 0. Vlll 

III 6,8.15,16,17 
19, 26, 28 

" waters IV 6, Q. XV 

Star of Panama (Estrella de) VII 6 

Substitution of a line VI 20, see plate 



No. VI 



Summary of Documents IX 

Swamp A II 7, 18 



151 

Chap. Sec. 

Swamp A IV 3, O. XII 

IV I, O. XVII 

V 10'^ 

Talamanca Valley Ill 28. 29 

Tables of traverse line to Middle Creek VI 30 

Temperature VI 10 

Tarire or Telire Rivers IV 2, 3, Q. I. 

Upper Telire II 57, 67, 71 

Tracing of the line that closes upon the north 

the Valley of Sixaola . II 52 

III I 

Uncertain course IV 5, 6, O. IV 

Uren INIountain VIII 11, 12 

Valley of the Sixaola II 12, 27, 37, 38, 

43. 46, 50, 
51. 52, 56, 

65 

" " " III 6.8, 19, 26,28 

" " " IV 2, 4, O. X. 

Valleys, independent IV 1 1, O. I 

Yorkin River IV 4, Q. II 

Watzi Creek II 60, 61 

IV 6, O. VIII 

Watershed IX i 

Zavala Uandino; Ill 22, 21, 



APPENDIX. 



APPENDIX I. 



PHOTOGRAPHIC VIEW NO. 1 25. 

1 . It has been abundantly shown in this study that the 
theory of the North Divide is wholly foreign to the ques- 
tion now in litigation, for the French Arbitrator, as has 
been repeatedly stated, never referred in this connection 
to any divide whatever, but to a spur or counterfort which 
he supposed existed, closing on the north the valley of the 
Tarire, or vSixaola River, and which, starting from Punta 
Mona, ended in the chain that separated the waters of the 
two oceans. 

2. It has also been established that if the Commission 
undertook the location of that divide, they should have 
treated it as a mere detail or as information for use in 
illustrating their study, but under no circumstances as the 
principal subject of their inquiry; much less should the 
Commission have adopted it as a basis for its conclusions, 
which apparently is what was done. 

3. Because, even in the event that that divide as shown 
on the maps and reports had been topographically correct, 
such conclusions would still have been without value on 
account of the admitted fact that no spur or counterfort 
whatever exists which starts from Punta Mona and continues 
iininterruptedly to a terminal in the cordiUera dividing the 
waters oj the two oceans and which, at the same time, closes on 
the north the valley of the Talire and Sixaola rivers. 

4. This indisputable proposition, which is in itself alone 
enough to upset the conclusions of the French Award, 
remains in full force and vigor, based as it is upon the in- 
controvertible facts and arguments presented in the maps 
and reports of the Commission and detailed at great 
length in the present report. 

(iii) 



IV 

5- Nevertheless, the positive estabhshment of this truth 
is so important to a just determination of the present liti- 
gation that no discussion tending in any manner to throw 
more light on the point can be looked upon as a work of 
supererogation. 

6. For the determination of a real and material fact 
science offers many resources — and none more simple, 
none more exact and eloquent than photography. By 
means of this process the real and material facts as they 
exist impose themselves upon the human mind before all 
other considerations ; they are made to stand forth by the 
aid of this art in defiance of and in the face of the craftiest 
arguments of the logician, of the most exact maps of which 
the hand of man is capable — subject as they are to imper- 
fection a,nd error — and even in the face of contradiction of 
mathematical deductions. 

7. Precisely of this character is the final evidence ad- 
duced as to the indisputable proposition above mentioned. 

8. In fact, photographic view No. 125, which the Com- 
mission presents in its report (Vol. 4, Appendix No. 4) 
suffices in itself to give full light to the truth and could in 
strict justice be held to render negligible any contradictory 
contentions on this point. 

9. It is also true that, as in the case of the reports of 
the engineers in the field corps, the Commission did not 
give to this document — the most important of all that 
have been presented — the merit to which it is entitled; 
that body contented itself with tracing between stations 
D616 and Cerro Doble, which appear in the said photo- 
graph, the line of the North Divide, which is drawn on the 
maps as a continuous ridge between those stations, leaving 
out the other points shown in the photograph, which also 
form part of the Divide. 



1 



^ ■> 






"s. 









// 






I 1 






II 
II 
l\ 

w 

It 
II 
II 
<l 

II 



-: 



<X) o 



M k 



^ 



VD 



10. The filling in of this omi sion 's the sol.^ labor that 
remains to be preformed in this connection, and this 
Chapter will undertake the task in the fewest possible 
words. 

11. According to the Commission^ the photographic 
camera was located at some 410 meters towards the north 
of Station A2480 on the Divide, and at the respective 
azimuths of 202°, 232° and 252° were taken the views num- 
bered 120, 121 and 122, which together compose the view 
numbered 125A, and later known as No. 125, and finally 
the view which is the subject of this Chapter, enlarged for 
greater clearness. 

12. In this view it not only appears that the Commis- 
sion marks D616 and Cerro Doble as forming the North 
Divide, but that from the same point are also taken 
peaks 66A, 65A, 58A, 43A, 54A, and 68A which in the 
same way pertain to the Commission's Divide, as may 
be seen on the maps. 

13. These stations occupy the following positions on 
the maps of the Commission : 







Longitude W . 




Location. 


Station . 


of Greenwich . 


A^ Latitude. 


North Divide. . . 


. 66A 


83° 20' 00'' 


9° 40' 00" 


North Divide. . . 


• 65A 


83° 20' 04" 


9° 39' 50" 


North Divide. . . 


. 58A 


83° 20' 15'' 


9° 39' 32" 


North Divide. . . 


• 43A 


83° ^i' 50" 


9° 36' 40" 


North Divide. . . 


• 54A 


83° 20' 12" 


9° 39' 32" 


North Divide. . . 


. 68A 


83° 21' 40" 


9° 37' 30" 


North Divide. . . 


. D616 
Cerro 


83° 16' 30'' 


9° 40' 50" 


North Divid . . . 


. Doble 


83° 10' 20" 


9° 38' 50" 



^Report of the Commission, Vol. 4, Appendix No. 4, page 13. 



VI 



14- These points having been thus fixed, it is enough 
to glance at the photograph in order to be convinced : 



FIRST. 

That the stations 66 A, 65 A and 58A are found to be in 
the same file, or ridge, B. 

SECOND. 

That in order to continue the Divide from 58A on the 
ridge B to station 43A on the ridge F, it has been necessary 
to cut across the ridges C, D, E, with their corresponding 
deep depressions, to reach the ridge F whereon is located 
point 43A. 

THIRD. 

That in order to go from 43A to point 54A in the 
Divide, it has been necessary to descend ridge F and ascend 
ridge G. 

FOURTH. 

That from ridge G, whereon is located station 54A, in 
order to reach ridge J, whereon is located station 68A, it 
has been necessary to cross ridges F, H, I, and one side 
of J. 

FIFTH. 

That from ridge J, station 68A, it is necessary to cross 
ridges K, L and M in order to reach station D616, which 
the Commission connects directly with Cerro Doble. 

15. From these five propositions — apparent from a 
simple glance — the irresistible conclusion results that 
NO CONTINUOUS vSPUR OR COUNTERFORT OR ■ 
CORDILLERA WHATSOEVER EXISTS THAT 
CLOSES ON THE NORTH THE VALLEY OF THE 



Vll 



SIXAOLA AND TKI.IRE RIVERS, but that, on the 
contrary, the supposititious Divide is itself formed by 
a group of ridges alternating with deep ravines that place 
beyond the possibility of doubt the fact that there is no 
regular and continuous spur or cordillera. 

1 6. To make perfectly clear these facts shown in 
photographic view No. 125, attention is called to the 
accompanying diagram. On it the ridges are designated with 
the same letters that are used on the photograph, and 
the dotted line indicates the course of the Divide. 

Ridge A is the most distant. Then follows ridge B, 
whereon are located stations 66A, 65A and 58A; but 
from this point it is necessary to cross the ridge C, D, E 
in order to reach 43A on ridge F ; from that point on F, 
54A ridge G is reached, and then, this time recrossing F, 
and afterwards H and I, ridge J is reached, whereon is 
located station 68A; but from this point, in order to 
reach D616, it is necessary to cut across ridges K, L and M/ 

17. The Commission assumes that D616 connects with 
Cerro Doble along the ridge, but if the photograph is 
examined, or a glance taken at the above diagram, it 
will be seen that stations D616 and Cerro Doble are not 
in the same chain contrary to the indication of the maps. 

The merest glance at the photograph shows that 
station D616 is on ridge M, which lies at a considerable 
distance from ridge N, whereon is located the Cerro Doble 
station. 

It will be seen that ridge N loses itself exactly in the 
direction of the station 69 A between ridges K and M, 
ridges K and N being nearer the camera than ridge M. 
The error in the maps is therefore incontrovertibly 
established by this photograph. 

^ It may be possible that ridges E and H, D and I, C and J, 
be respectively the same ridge, but this does not change the 
argument. 



VIU 

1 8. It is impossible to conceive a simpler and more 
evident demonstration of the fundamental principle which 
has been established, to-wit, the non-existence of a counter- 
fort or Cordillera on the site fixed by the Survey Com- 
mission on its maps as the divide north of the vSixaola 
and Telire Rivers. 

LUIS MATAMOROS, 
Consulting Engineer of the 

Government of Costa Riea. 



